Advice please for a rejected Prior Notification of Householder Extension

[^woody^]

Have you been hitting the wacky baccy hard today woods?

I have not. But may I suggest that you should?

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Why do you think your irrelevant sentence in the tech guidance is relevant?

 

[^woody^]

Why do you think your irrelevant sentence in the tech guidance is relevant?

Blimey that was quick. I know I suggested that you have a draw, but I never thought you'd light up straight away.

 

[tony1851]

Look, is perfectly simple. The OP is not building a garage. He's building an extension on the back of his house
Yes, I agree with that.
The planners say that the OP's rear extension is not PD because it is (in their view) actually a side extension because it projects forward of an existing wall (the garage wall) forming a side elevation of the dwelling house.
I see where they are coming from, but the council expressed it incorrectly. What they mean is that, with the proposed extension connected physically to the garage, the whole (ie extension+garage) becomes a wrap-round, to which the PN scheme does not apply.

In fact, the garage wall is not (according to the technical guide) part of the dwelling house. Therefore the proposed extension can not be projecting forward of a side elevation of the dwelling house (it's solely a rear extension) and so must be PD.
The garage wall is still part of the garage, which is an enlargement of the house, so the whole becomes a wrap-round as above.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Apparently the garage isn't part of the house tony, its a ........ err a thingy ........ or something! Maybe it's an outbuilding? Oh no wait it's not that either. A porch maybe? Hmm

 

[^woody^]

Apparently the garage isn't part of the house tony, its a ........ err a thingy ........ or something! Maybe it's an outbuilding? Oh no wait it's not that either. A porch maybe? Hmm

Dwellinghouse. Dwellinghouse.

It's the technical guide's own definition.

I'm not sure if you purposely choose to block out the facts you don't understand, or just can't register them, but it's there in the guide for you to read. I'm just pointing it out to you.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Your PD defying sentence seems to be saying dwellinghouses don't include flats. Whilst my eyesight is degrading as I get older but I can't seem to see the word garage mentioned?

“Dwellinghouse” - does not include buildings containing one or more flats or a single flat
contained within a building. (Note, however, that for the purposes of this guidance, the
word “house” is used rather than “dwellinghouse” except where quoting the legislation
directly.)

 

[^woody^]

The garage wall is still part of the garage, which is an enlargement of the house, so the whole becomes a wrap-round as above.

You are applying other planning terms where they don't apply.

It's nothing to do with an "enlargement".

It has everything to do with the side elevation of the existing dwelling house.

Nothing in the guide defines a garage as being part of the dwelling house. In fact the garage is always referred to as "a garage" elsewhere in the guide, and in context of being part of the curtilage and not part of the dwelling house.

That is important as it sets the definition of what is the "dwelling house" for the purpose of the guide. And therefore what is the side elevation of the dwelling house.

 

[^woody^]

Your PD defying sentence seems to be saying dwellinghouses don't include flats. Whilst my eyesight is degrading as I get older but I can't seem to see the word garage mentioned?

“Dwellinghouse” - does not include buildings containing one or more flats or a single flat
contained within a building. (Note, however, that for the purposes of this guidance, the
word “house” is used rather than “dwellinghouse” except where quoting the legislation
directly.)

I mentioned it earlier. You need to read the definition and the rest of the guide as a whole to understand what is defined as what.

There is a concept in drafting terms and legislation that who ever does the drafting would include everything that he intends to in the text. If he leaves stuff out, that is because it was never intended to be included.

So if a dwelling house, House
was intended to include anything else, then it would be explicitly stated.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

I don't know if I'm embarrassed for you or feel sorry for you?

 

[^woody^]

I don't know if I'm embarrassed for you or feel sorry for you?

Keep if for yourself.

You always try and disparage stuff which you don't know anything about.

You clearly don't know about this, and have not come up with a single thing to support your view. So I'll leave it there.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Yes yes yes, apparently we don't understand and yet you seem incapable of explaining it?

 

[tony1851]

@ Woody

OK, let's get back to basics:

The GPDO starts thus;

Permitted Development
A. The enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse.

You maintain that an attached garage is pd because it is not an enlargement of a 'dwellinghouse' - have I understood you correctly? So on your reckoning, I could build - say - an artists' studio on the side of my house under pd, and then physically connect to it a 3m extension
on the back of the house, and the whole would still be pd, even though it would be a wrap-round???

Your opinion seems bizarre, if I may say so.

 

[wessex101]

I thought the argument was simply that a garage is not a dwellinghouse. Therefore this extension does not project beyond a side elevation of the dwelling and should be PD.

There is some logic in there. Personally I gave up trying to understand planning rules months ago, I've become a cat herder, it's so much easier.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Apparently the Oracle won't now bless us with his presence, we are all too thick grasp it.