Bungalow Side extension - Need to setback ?

[davidnow]

Hi,

I have a detached bungalow on a huge plot. It has a rectangular footprint approx 14.7m x 7.35m.

Ideally I'd like to extend to a footprint of 24.7m x 7.35m.

This would still leave the extension 3.3m short of the boundary to the nearest property, which is perpendicular to mine on a return.

I am reading the 'local development framework' from the local council and there are multiple references to the desirability / need for extensions to be subordinate and setback, but all the examples show buildings on a street with other houses where the terracing effect may be an issue.

e.g.

6.5 Side extensions to bungalows that alter the existing roof and ridgeline can sometimes create a terracing effect. To prevent this and to ensure that any extension is subordinate, a minimum 1 metre gap to the boundary should be maintained. The extension should normally incorporate a setback of 1 metre from the main dwelling wall and a lowered roof ridgeline.

However, my bungalow is the sole property on a cul-de-sac with the building line behind the property on the return, i.e. the property perpendicular to mine.

Are the planners less inclined to reject the application if there are no other properties on the street ?

Any thoughts , thanks.

 

[JP_]

Hard to tell without seeing plans, but sounds like it would not be a problem. 3m is a good distance (my bungalow is only 3m from neighbour on one side).

Best thing is to draw up plans and submit them. Will need roof plans too. Planning Portal is great for submitting your own plans.

 

[^woody^]

The purpose of a setback is to ensure that the extension is subservient to the existing building, not for avoiding terracing or anything else related to adjacent properties.

Whether subservience is desirable for a specific site is down to the planners opinion

 

[DevilDamo]

This set back and set down ‘normally’ applies to two storey side extensions and which is why the majority of LPA’s would accept the ground floor front wall running flush but the first floor front wall set back. With this first floor wall set back in turn brings down the new ridge line so the set down has also been achieved.

LPA’s also don’t mind ground floor side walls spanning to the boundary but having the first floor side wall set in by 1m, which is the terracing effect. There is no Planning rule to state you need to provide or retain front to rear access but it is something I tend to steer away from.

Depending on how high you want the new roof over to be (assuming you’re not worried about it lining through with the original), you could look to utilise your PD rights and have a flush front wall. That is of course assuming PD rights remain intact and there are no other site restrictions preventing you from doing so.

 

[davidnow]

I'm thinking of a 10m side extension , I wouldn't have thought PD would be an option.

The bungalow is rectangular in plan view, with gable walls at each end and a simple pitched roof, which has eaves height 3m and ridge height 5m.

Ideally, I'd like the walls of extension to be flush with the existing, and to keep the same ridge height and eaves height for the extension the same.

There is about 13.3m from the existing gable wall to the neighbour's fence (assuming I remove existing conservatory ). There is a garage on neighbour's plot that is built up to the boundary. I thought that keeping a gap of 3.3m would allow for a bit of garden and remove any 'party wall act' issues.

 

[DevilDamo]

That is quite a sizeable extension and the LPA may in that case request for it to be sub-survient. There should be no harm in trying to seek approval for what you want and if need be, negotiate with the LPA during the determination process.

As for the PWA, that will be fine as it only really comes into play when you’re within 3m and your new foundations are not as deep as those to the neighbouring property.