Breach of Condition 3

[freddiemercurystwin]

Your photo clearly shows the extension and an existing red brick gable.

 

[Notch7]

Im a bit confused by the picture -on the right hand side by the skip you seem to have brickwork in the the new colour but between the windows it doesnt go full height and weirdly it seems to have been built in front of the original brickwork

what does the rest of the house look like?

 

[karlosmarshall]

Yes we had to stop there to remove the existing roof to build up but that’s built up to the new wall plate now

 

[karlosmarshall]

That gable is to be demolished

 

[karlosmarshall]

And the brick face is tied and built in front of the existing walls

 

[Notch7]

And the brick face is tied and built in front of the existing walls

So you’ve built a wall in front of the existing one?

I hate to mention this, but across the principal elevation, that’s not permitted development: it needs planning permission.

Im surprised the foundation extends beyond the original external walls to support another brick skin

 

[^woody^]

We started building work on our orangery in 2016/2017 using the new brick

Then your conservatory was in breach of PD.

all I’m saying is the condition states that the extension is to match the existing dwelling no mention of red brick they should have stipulated that on the condition

No, the planners do not have to stipulate to the nth degree. In planning terms, just like in normal terms "to match" means "to match". So a multi-coloured mottled brick that has no red in it at all, does not match a plain red brick!

 

[karlosmarshall]

The original footings have all been done to support a new facing wall our orangery is built to what is allowed under permitted development size wise and anyone is entitled to
Build the same size single story extension as we have but the orangery is not in question as we have built it to what is legally permitted width, depth and height? Our new brick dose have red brick in it still be it multi coloured but this is the reason we are stuck I know from what we are told that the original house can be refaced under permitted development and that we are also allowed to choose what ever we want to reface it I can understand that the enforcement are saying that the extension needs to be red brick to match the original house before redressing it but surely no one will build the majority of a house in a new brick then build the extension in a different brick as it would not match the original dwelling be it a strange way to build a house but we are still living in it we just started from the back and worked our way around the house as the extension needed much more work put into it we had no choice but to do it the way we have but all the existing walls of the property have been covered over almost up to the new wall plate leaving areas to tie in with the extension and to remove the roof part and water tight before building up to the new wall plate but any new wall not previously there has been built after refacing the existing dwelling
It’s a difficult one I know and it’s so confusing as iv said I have been told we are legally allowed to reface the existing house and if that was done first then surely when they say the extension needs to match the original dwelling then that is the case as we have a new facing brick
Please don’t think we are just doing this to bend the rules as far as we are concerned we were always going to change the brick we had conversations with the planning officer before submitting planning about changing it and I can accept we have been naive about the whole thing and have most likely misinterpreted the condition I’m happy to submit a retrospective application if needs be god knows how to do that but I definitely think this is a tricky one

 

[mrrusty]

In this situation I would talk to the planners. Fess up that you've made a mistake and thought that if you were changing the existing facing the extension should match. Ask them how best to resolve it - new application etc. but at the same time you can indicate that you aren't going to change it anytime soon and that you would intend to exhaust the appeals process before changing. It may be that a couple of £100 for a new application will be more interesting to the LA than an appeal fight. Pragmatic reasonableness is the way forward.

 

[^woody^]

Please don’t think we are just doing this to bend the rules as far as we are concerned we were always going to change the brick

You are not bending the rules just not following or understanding them!

The criterion for PD and formal permission is relatively straightforward, but a layperson can't just interpret them to what they think they mean. Normally they should get the requirements clarified by someone who is experienced. That can be the local planners, but as there is inherent bias there, it is normally best to consult an independent professional - and rely on their advice and insurance if the advice is poor.

Planning rules are not just there for the benefit of those who want to carryout development, but also for those who have to stare at or are impacted by the development every day afterwards.