Prior Approval Larger Home Extension - Extension Roof Cannot Join Existing Bungalow Roof?

[wessex101]

I'm having a right battle with my local planning department over a really simple rear extension to a bungalow and I just needed a sanity check.

It was so simple I initially told the client he could submit the application himself and he didn't need any plans from me. Unfortunately he forgot to put the red outline on his site plan "showing the proposed development" so it was refused. The planners also said that he should have submitted full plans showing existing and proposed elevations and floor plans "to enable them to fully assess the proposal"

Understandably the client was not best pleased so I said I would submit a new application. I just submitted the basic prior approval application with a location plan and site plan with the position of the extension highlighted in red. This has clearly wound up the planning officer because today I received 3 emails.

The first asked me to confirm the "height of the existing building" so I gave them the roof ridge and eaves height.

They then came back and asked "if the proposal would alter or tie in to the existing roof". I could tell where this was going so I replied that it was an "ordinary bungalow extension so whilst the existing roof will be unaltered the roof of the proposed extension will be joined to the existing roof".

They have now come back with the bombshell that as the extension roof will "tie in with the existing roof, under class A.1.(k.(iv)) (an alteration to any part of the roof of the dwellinghouse)
the proposal is not permitted development and planning permission will be required.

Am I losing my marbles?

 

[DevilDamo]

The height query is normal as that’s a question on the PA application form.

If the new roof is to connect to the existing, then the PD rules for additions to roofs will also kick in. I assume you’re proposing some form of pitched roof as it’s very difficult to get PD for a flat roof extension to a bungalow?

 

[wessex101]

I just cannot believe that it was the intention when they drafted the permitted development rules that where an extension roof touches the existing roof it is classed as "an alteration to the existing roof" and is therefore no longer permitted development.
So that rules out all bungalow extensions with a pitched roof including all bungalow porch extensions with a pitched roof, and also due to the problems with eaves heights for flat roof extensions on a bungalow that effectively means you cannot extend a bungalow under permitted development at all. It will also exclude all rear 3metre deep 2 storey extensions with a pitched roof to a 2 storey house so why bother giving them permitted development status if they won't let anyone build them?
Oh and we've got this new PD rule that says you can build an entire new storey on a bungalow or house and 2 storeys on flats but don't even think about trying to build a small rear extension.
The world has gone mad!

 

[Notch7]

Would it be possible to do an extension with a hipped on a bungalow, so the abutment was a box gutter at eves level?

Or I suppose a gable end at the abutment end

Or is that still a roof alteration?

 

[DevilDamo]

You can still add an extension to a bungalow via PD providing it complies with the guidance. Note the roof alterations are only those associated with new roofs, not original roofs. Can you share the drawings?

 

[tony1851]

Planning Jungle lists quite a number of appeals on this topic both supporting and refuting Wessex's problem - about half-and-half, so clearly it's a moot point, even among Planning Inspectors.
For a single-storey extension on the back of a two-storey dwelling it's not going to be an issue. But where a single storey is being added to a bungalow on the eaves-side then - yes - it will always be a problem and it seems P.D. might not apply.
Must admit I've never thought of this or actually come across it.
Like much in the P.D. rules, TPTB often didn't think these things through.

 

[wessex101]

It is also worth pointing out, well in my opinion anyway, the whole purpose of the prior approval larger home extension scheme was to allow homeowners a cheap and quick route to allow them to build larger extensions without getting bogged down in the cost and bureaucracy of the planning system.

It was not intended for planning officers to demand detailed plans and scrutinise the proposal in minute detail to establish whether it is permitted development. It was my understanding that the planning officer effectively took the homeowners word that the work was permitted development and their only involvement was to consult the neighbours and if there was an objection to review the proposal solely on the basis of the potential loss of amenity to the neighbour. It would only be during the course of construction that any potential errors in the homeowners understanding of the projects permitted development status would come to light and be dealt with by the usual enforcement route. Otherwise we are back to the situation where the homeowner is effectively applying for an LDC not a prior approval and all the cost, delay, petty power politics and bureaucracy inherent in the planning system.

It will be interesting to see what the planners do the next door neighbour who has just built an identical extension without planning permission.

I'm going to decline all future PD projects, they are more hassle than they are worth, especially as I did this one for free as I thought it would be quick and simple.

 

[tony1851]

When the scheme was first mooted in Parliament, a minister stated that the idea was that a householder could make a Prior Notification him/herself, 'with about half-an-hour's work' and without having to employ an architect/plan drawer to draw detailed plans. All that was required was 'a plan showing the site and the proposed extension'; the plan could even be a simple hand-drawn sketch. There didn't need to be a 1:1250 plan or a form - as long as an application was in writing and gave maximum heights and distance, that would suffice.

However, it soon became apparent that an LPA might not necessarily know from this basic information whether or not a proposal would in fact be permitted development. Eg no materials need be specified, but PD rules state that materials should match the existing house; what previous extensions have been built? and so on. So councils started asking for more detailed information/plans, which rather defeats the object.

As per usual, these things were not thought through. The rule about not extending more than half the width of the house when going beyond any side-facing wall is a case in point. What would help householders is if they would (a) allow single-storey wrap-rounds and (b) allow two-storey side extensions front-to-back as PD.

 

[wessex101]

So I thought I would provide a quick update. I had a chat with the planning officer and they are sticking to their guns over the extension roof not touching the existing roof so I did the quick sketch below to illustrate the problem. Bonkers.

 

[Nakajo]

an LPA might not necessarily know from this basic information whether or not a proposal would in fact be permitted development

I think the idea was that the LPA wouldn't really get involved unless neighbours raised objections, which is why the submission is made to the local authority rather than the planning department

 

[wessex101]

I think the idea was that the LPA wouldn't really get involved unless neighbours raised objections, which is why the submission is made to the local authority rather than the planning department

I seem to recall when it was first proposed it was just going to be a straightforward increase in the permitted development maximum sizes. It was only when all the Planners started screaming how unfair it was that the government came up with the fudge that is the "neighbour consultation scheme." As soon as the planners got their grubby hands all over it they managed to wreck it like they usually do.

 

[tony1851]

I seem to recall when it was first proposed it was just going to be a straightforward increase in the permitted development maximum sizes. It was only when all the Planners started screaming how unfair it was that the government came up with the fudge that is the "neighbour consultation scheme." As soon as the planners got their grubby hands all over it they managed to wreck it like they usually do.

They resented losing the application fees.

 

[designgrey]

So I thought I would provide a quick update. I had a chat with the planning officer and they are sticking to their guns over the extension roof not touching the existing roof so I did the quick sketch below to illustrate the problem. Bonkers.

View attachment 218272

Single Stoey PD Roof

• designgrey
• 17 Feb 2021

The Planning Portal mini guide shows this, so the existing roof altered is PD?

 

[tony1851]

The Planning Portal can give that as an example, but it is not law. Frequently they interpret their own rules incorrectly,as at least two Appeal Court cases have shown.

 

[designgrey]

The Planning Portal can give that as an example, but it is not law. Frequently they interpret their own rules incorrectly,as at least two Appeal Court cases have shown.

The example I showed from the Planning Portal (and I can't find an example anywhere else including the Government's Permitted development rights for householders technical guide) is a solution I have seen in PD many times, some even having a LDC issued. Are you saying the Planning Portal info is definitely wrong?