Advice On Our Proposed Extension (Under PD)

[EViS]

We are wanting to extend our very small bungalow and feel the Permitted Development route will offer sufficient scope for this. Our bungalow is attached, we want to extend to the rear and to the side.

Attached are some drawings we have come up with and wonder whether anyone could offer some advice/comments on whether this will all fall within PD.

Our two primary concerns are:

a ) Whether the new mansard roof design over the existing property and the new extensions falls within the scope of PD. The PD Technical Guidance states that "an alteration to any part of the roof of the dwellinghouse" is not PD. However, loft conversions often require roof alterations, so why would our proposal not fall under PD?

b ) Whether we are ok constructing the (nearly) 4 metre wall on the boundary to our neighbour? Or should we form a lower wall with an eave here too (i.e. mansard pitch towards the neighbour's garden)?

Block Plan (Proposed Extension):

Untitled

• EViS
• 11 Mar 2014
• 2

Existing:

Untitled

• EViS
• 11 Mar 2014
• 2

Untitled

• EViS
• 11 Mar 2014
• 1

Proposed:

Untitled

• EViS
• 11 Mar 2014
• 2

Untitled

• EViS
• 11 Mar 2014
• 1

 

[tony1851]

If you look at all the limitations in Class A (enlargements) and Class B (roof enlargements) of the permitted development rules, I'm pretty sure your scheme will fall foul of at least a few of them.

 

[EViS]

Hmmm, any chance you could point out which rules it will fail on under Class A?

In terms of Class B, is this because we are enlarging the roof over the existing house? The void in the roof is still no larger than circa 1.2m high (i.e. no where near the height for a loft conversion) and lower than the existing ridge.

 

[DevilDamo]

The drawings aren't great. Just stick with 2D plans and elevations. Easier to clarify then.

However, your side extension appears to exceed 4m in height, which is above the PD limitations. Also, it may just be a drawing error, but at present, your side and rear extensions are shown being linked (even though it's a small part). They cannot link under PD.

And as mentioned above, you would have to calculate the additional roof volume created. Good luck with those calculations.

 

[EViS]

However, your side extension appears to exceed 4m in height, which is above the PD limitations.

Do correct me if I am wrong, but would the height of the side extension not be measured from the rear end where the ground level is highest? Making that side extension 3.75m high (4.3m high from the front elevation).

Also, it may just be a drawing error, but at present, your side and rear extensions are shown being linked (even though it's a small part). They cannot link under PD.

Again, correct me if I have misunderstood a part of the PD, but the side and rear extensions only meet at the corner of the existing house. For example, should the side extension finish 100mm from the rear of the house and the rear extension start 100mm inwards to form a clear gap between the two?

 

[tony1851]

The PD Technical Guidance states that "an alteration to any part of the roof of the dwellinghouse" is not PD. However, loft conversions often require roof alterations, so why would our proposal not fall under PD?

That does seem confusing at first glance. However, the purpose is merely to separate class A enlargements from those in class B.

If you look at class B, it starts by stating that the enlargement or alteration of a roof is permitted development, but then goes on to set the limitations to this (apparent) free-for-all by parameters detailed in B1.

With regard to your own scheme, it is difficult to tell whether it would be p.d. as there seems to be a lot going on, the scale is a little too small, and the way the 3D drawing has come out doesn't really show the roof as a Mansard.

Just put that to the planners with an applicatin for a LDC and see what they come up with.

 

[DevilDamo]

Do correct me if I am wrong, but would the height of the side extension not be measured from the rear end where the ground level is highest? Making that side extension 3.75m high (4.3m high from the front elevation).

No. It would be measured in relation to any ground level adjacent the extension. So to get your proposal to comply, it would have to be 4m at the front and approx. 3.7m at the rear.

Again, correct me if I have misunderstood a part of the PD, but the side and rear extensions only meet at the corner of the existing house. For example, should the side extension finish 100mm from the rear of the house and the rear extension start 100mm inwards to form a clear gap between the two?

As I said, your drawing may be incorrect/misleading. There has to be physical separation between the two, which is not shown on your block plan.

I hope you're not using the above drawings to obtain a LDC?