Eaves height? Existing building?

[oculushut]

Hi - in the following post it was established that the proposed design was most likely within permitted development: https://www.diynot.com/diy/threads/do-i-need-to-make-a-planning-application.508339/

The wall I have highlighted in the following image would rest on an area which could be considered the existing.

Is it still within permitted development if the wall that I have highlighted is basically sitting on where the eaves of the existing building?

Existing looks like this:

 

[jasonzyx]

Is that the rear of your house?
I think it's a naff layout.
Why not turn the new roof pitch through 90°, so that the eaves is above your new french window/patio doors?
The new wall plate could even extend into the corner. You'll still have a box gutter to sort out, but whatever your design, you'll have that anyway.

 

[oculushut]

Is that the rear of your house?
I think it's a naff layout.
Why not turn the new roof pitch through 90°, so that the eaves is above your new french window/patio doors?
The new wall plate could even extend into the corner. You'll still have a box gutter to sort out, but whatever your design, you'll have that anyway.

Hi - yes, rear of the house and one of the main reasons for the design is to minimise the height at the boundary for our neighbour on the side where the eaves are right now (right hand side in this drawing). The other neighbour has a mirrored layout where the parapet wall at the boundary is the apex for their sloped roof with the eaves of their outrigger in the centre of their property. In terms of aesthetic appeal, personally, I think just turning the new section 90 degrees makes it worse, but that’s very subjective. The constraints of permitted development are fairly limiting and there is no way our council would allow any of this in a mid-terrace under a planning application.

However, is the current design still within permitted development? Even with the new parapet wall being above the old building’s eaves?

Additionally, in your suggestion, you mention extending into the corner. You mean, building even more over where the existing roof is? Is that allowed under permitted development?

 

[RichA]

Why are the eaves so high? 1m above the bifolds?

Whilst you have reduced the actual eaves, I suspect the perceived overbearing of this design will be worse than sloping down to eaves over the bifolds.

 

[oculushut]

Why are the eaves so high? 1m above the bifolds?

Whilst you have reduced the actual eaves, I suspect the perceived overbearing of this design will be worse than sloping down to eaves over the bifolds.

The increased height allows more light to pass into the back living room of the main house (the ceilings in the main house are also high so good to have them matched). The eaves are 3m at the boundary - maximum allowed under permitted development. Unfortunately, the local planning department rejected many designs which were submitted under the larger extension rules, objected by the neighbours and far lower (e.g. 2.1m), but longer (e.g. even 3.1m). We just want to build something with certainty now and not waste any more time and money with the uncertainty of seeking planning approval.

Anyhow, any views on permitted development rules?

 

[^woody^]

Building on the existing has got nothing to do with whether the exention is PD or not.

 

[oculushut]

Building on the existing has got nothing to do with whether the exention is PD or not.

Thanks Woody. Just wanted to make sure that there is no rule about not altering an existing roof slope or anything like that.

 

[^woody^]

The only rule that would apply is that of when connecting to an existing extension, then the combined dimensions come into play. But that must surely have been discussed in your previous thread.

 

[oculushut]

The only rule that would apply is that of when connecting to an existing extension, then the combined dimensions come into play. But that must surely have been discussed in your previous thread.

Hey Woody, I don’t think we discussed that in the previous posting, but I should be safe on this point since the extension is not touching any other extensions (no risk of a wraparound extension being created). Appreciate the warning!

 

[^woody^]

Whats that thing with the big red roof lower LH corner? Is that original?

 

[oculushut]

Whats that thing with the big red roof lower LH corner? Is that original?

So, the original building looks like this:

The bit with the flat roof is a 3m extension that the original owners of the house built a long time ago... we are planning to rebuild this so that the roof lines up with the original outrigger... here's a better view of the final output - basically - 2 x 3m extensions off the back walls:

(Please ignore the pitch differences... my original model of the current pitch was wrong and I adjusted it in the new model, but not the old one. Also, the Parapet wall that is on the left of the last drawing exists already...)

 

[^woody^]

You might want to recheck the PD guidance.

That existing extension is non original, and so it is taken into account when adding to it.

This may impact on your ability to extend sideways more than 50% of the house width and extend outwards as the existing extension already exceeds 3m by the looks of things.

Was this not discussed in your previous thread?

 

[garyo]

I think the two three metre extensions dont touch each other though, although it looks like that existing portion of the original property will be heavily remodelled so you might get in to trouble if the whole thing then gets classed as an extension.

Ocult- can you confirm that that single story pitched roof piece is original?

 

[oculushut]

You might want to recheck the PD guidance.

That existing extension is non original, and so it is taken into account when adding to it.

This may impact on your ability to extend sideways more than 50% of the house width and extend outwards as the existing extension already exceeds 3m by the looks of things.

Was this not discussed in your previous thread?

The existing rear extension (current flat-roof section) which is attached to the rear-most part of the outrigger is 3m so we should be OK to just rebuild this. This is also < 4m at its peak and < 3m at the eaves.

The extension which is closer to the main house is < 50% width of the whole house already.

The classification of the extension closest to the main building as a side extension was discussed in the previous thread. It was at about this point which I started to be convinced that Sir Humphrey almost certainly helped write the PD rules and the local councils are probably trying their very hardest to make sure that PD looked like something which cannot work...

 

[oculushut]

I think the two three metre extensions dont touch each other though, although it looks like that existing portion of the original property will be heavily remodelled so you might get in to trouble if the whole thing then gets classed as an extension.

Ocult- can you confirm that that single story pitched roof piece is original?

I can confirm that the single storey pitched roof part is original. We will keep the pitch the same and the footprint will also remain the same.

Can they really class the original outrigger is part of the extension?