Rear Extension to sidewall of existing rear extension.

[Dan gmail]

View attachment 224551

I would say the yellow outline is the original house. It looks like an original 2 storey outrigger at the back NOT an extension. From DevilDamo's aerial photo there are houses nearby with the exact same outrigger which look contemporary with the style of the house. The blue is the previous extension and red the proposed new extension.

So as long as the proposed extension is no more than half the width of the house then I would say it is PD.

Yeah that's what I thought, so you think the officer is incorrect in this case that it's connected?

 

[DevilDamo]

Below is an extract from the Officer’s Report...

The enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would have a single storey and –
(i) extend beyond the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse by more than 4 metres in the case of a detached dwellinghouse, or 3 metres in the case of any other dwellinghouse, or
(ii) exceed 4 metres in height
YES – The proposed depth is measured at approx. 4.61m. Moreover,
there is an existing original double storey rear extension at the property which has been extended on the ground floor (by approx. 3.9m). The proposed structure would be structurally joined to it and hence, cumulatively the depth would exceed 3m.

The enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse, and would –
(i) exceed 4 metres in height,
(ii) have more than a single storey, or
(iii) have a width greater than half the width of the
original dwellinghouse
Yes to (iii) the proposed extension would be joined with an original rear extension and when combined, the two structures would have a width greater than half the width of the original house

@Dan gmail You are aware this is a LDC and not PA application? I was wondering why the Officer’s Report made reference to the length if it was as you mentioned a PA application. I’d probably suggest for you to not worry about other people’s applications... unless you have some kind of direct connection to the applicant, agent or application?

 

[wessex101]

Yeah that's what I thought, so you think the officer is incorrect in this case that it's connected?

100%, although to be generous it was DevilDamo's aerial photo that was the clincher so if you did not make it clear to the planning officer that it was an original 2 storey outrigger it is a natural assumption for the planning officer to make.

Sometimes you have to spoon feed the information to them to get the result you want. Don't rely on them to go hunting for it.

 

[Dan gmail]

Below is an extract from the Officer’s Report...

The enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would have a single storey and –
(i) extend beyond the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse by more than 4 metres in the case of a detached dwellinghouse, or 3 metres in the case of any other dwellinghouse, or
(ii) exceed 4 metres in height
YES – The proposed depth is measured at approx. 4.61m. Moreover,
there is an existing original double storey rear extension at the property which has been extended on the ground floor (by approx. 3.9m). The proposed structure would be structurally joined to it and hence, cumulatively the depth would exceed 3m.

The enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse, and would –
(i) exceed 4 metres in height,
(ii) have more than a single storey, or
(iii) have a width greater than half the width of the
original dwellinghouse
Yes to (iii) the proposed extension would be joined with an original rear extension and when combined, the two structures would have a width greater than half the width of the original house

@Dan gmail You are aware this is a LDC and not PA application? I was wondering why the Officer’s Report made reference to the length if it was as you mentioned a PA application. I’d probably suggest for you to not worry about other people’s applications... unless you have some kind of direct connection to the applicant, agent or application?

I am not concerned about other peoples application, as I said previous its for the purpose of research as is one of the reasons councils put this information in the public domain. The PA application is 21/00152/PRH I must have pasted the wrong one.

 

[DevilDamo]

That reference does now relate to a PA application and which has been granted.

The Officer’s Report from that application states...

“Although the scheme would not be permitted under Class A, an amenity assessment has been carried out and it is considered that the proposal would cause no substantial harm to neighbour amenity and therefore Prior Approval is NOT REQUIRED.”

Can you clarify what the issue is? Are you agreeing or disagreeing with the outcome of the PA application?

 

[Dan gmail]

That reference does now relate to a PA application and which has been granted.

The Officer’s Report from that application states...

“Although the scheme would not be permitted under Class A, an amenity assessment has been carried out and it is considered that the proposal would cause no substantial harm to neighbour amenity and therefore Prior Approval is NOT REQUIRED.”

Can you clarify what the issue is? Are you agreeing or disagreeing with the outcome of the PA application?

The PA is granted because it doesn't effect amenity but that's not the question, its this "Although the scheme would not be permitted under Class A" according to gov guidance you can build a staggered extension off each rear wall so long as they dont overlap, so I don't see why its not permitted.

 

[DevilDamo]

I think you'll find they do overlap, which may have just been a minor error by the architect. LPA's are very strict on PD...

https://ibb.co/KsV3Kgk

https://ibb.co/QYcBc83

(Original = Red, Blue = Previous extension, Green = Proposed extension)