Change on planning application/PD?

[tony1851]

I was just looking this issue up on Steve Speed's site and he says that pages 26/27 of the Technical Guidance state that the single-storey would not be pd because it is attached to the two-storey.

Even so, OP should still carry on.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

That's only when part of the extension is wider than the house though isn't it?

 

[tony1851]

That's only when part of the extension is wider than the house though isn't it?

Yes, I agree, but the Planning Jungle site is quite specific on the general application of this rule. It quotes several appeal decisions ruling that any previous contigious extension makes the smaller bit not pd.

I was tempted to copy and paste what is there but I didn't want to be in trouble over any potential copyright issue.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Aye don't mess with the man from the jungle!

 

[^woody^]

That's only when part of the extension is wider than the house though isn't it?

Yes, I agree, but the Planning Jungle site is quite specific on the general application of this rule.

Are you reading the rule correctly and it's correct application?

The one you quoted relates to combining separate work which would be PD on their own, but combined makes an extension which would not be PD - ie it prevents circumcision of the PD rules by building in stages. That is not what the OP is doing

In the OP's case he has three clear planning elements - he has the existing main house, he has an approved extension by way of planning permission, and he has his PD entitlement which remains .... and he is exercising.

 

[tony1851]

ie it prevents circumcision of the PD rules by building in stages.

Unfortunate choice of words there?

Seriously, I can partly see your point, I think I might have been barking up the wrong tree. If he had pp ONLY for a 2-storey extension, and then built the single-storey extension adjoining it, the latter would not then be pd.

I don't know - it's late - nearly midnight - I'm off.

 

[^woody^]

Lol damn auto correct. Circumvention! There is no cutting involved

 

[planningjungle]

Hi all,

In my opinion (and as stated by Tony) the single storey rear extension (i.e. directly to the side of the two-storey rear extension) would not be PD.

There are two potential problems.

Firstly, it is not possible as a single operation to erect an extension on the basis that part of it has been granted PP by the Council and the other part would be PD. I've seen 6 appeal decisions that have supported the above conclusion, and none that have contradicted it. An example of such an appeal decision is the following:

http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/ViewCase.asp?caseid=2169793&coid=2169792

In the example subject of this current thread, for the works not to be a "single operation", it would have been necessary for the two-storey rear extension to have been completed, then for a sufficient amount of time to have passed, and then for the single storey rear extension to have been started.

The above might sound very "artificial", but I'm afraid it's just the way that planning law currently works. A similar situation is that under Class E you can lawfully build an outbuilding that contains a gym, and then (say) a year later you can lawfully convert the gym to a bedroom, but if you build the outbuilding with a bedroom in the first place it will be unlawful.

Even if it was the case that the single storey rear extension was a separate operation to the two-storey rear extension, then in my opinion it would still not be PD because of the following second issue.

There have been a number of appeal decisions that have either stated or implied that the phrase "the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse" not only applies to the proposed extension, but also includes any previous extension (i.e. non-original part of the application site) to which the proposed extension would be attached. More specifically, I've seen 7 appeal decisions that have supported the above conclusion versus 4 that have contradicted it - so there's a degree of ambiguity, but the majority support this conclusion.

What the above conclusion means is that even if the single storey rear extension was a separate operation to the two-storey rear extension, when you try to assess the single storey rear extension against PD legislation you would actually have to assess the combination of both extensions (because the "enlarged part of the dwellinghouse" would be the combination of both extensions).

The point that Tony referred to about pages 26/27 of the DCLG "Technical Guidance" document (2010) isn't that the above conclusion is stated by these pages, but that it's implied by these pages. Basically, these pages deal with a different example where one extension has been built under PD, and then the owner tries to erect a second extension under PD that would be attached to the first extension. For such an example, these pages state that the combination of both extensions would fail the limits of Class A, which strongly implies that the phrase "the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse" includes any previous extension (i.e. non-original part of the application site) to which the proposed extension would be attached (i.e. the same conclusion that's supported by the above 7 appeal decisions).

Hope the above helps,
Steve

 

[Andyk78]

Thanks Steve, and at the same time not thanks!! as
of course that's not what I wanted to hear
Planning rules are absolutely shocking sometimes and make no sense at all, and this is one of those times.
So if I wait until finished and a short time passes I can then have the single storey as PD but if do it now I can't.... Who writes these policies

 

[^woody^]

Firstly, it is not possible as a single operation

That's obvious, and is not in dispute

The issue is that there are two distinct extensions here, and your roof appeal example is not a good one to support your argument in the context of the OP's situation - the result is one roof and effectively one extension done at the same time.

Do you have a better example, as I can't find any with our subscription to a planning resource

The OP is building two extensions, unconnected in the context of not forming a single extension or one room (or one roof extension).

He could have built the conservatory conversion before the two-storey one under PD, even after getting permission for the two storey extension but before starting it. He can also build it afterwards as soon as the main two storey structure is complete, as his conversion is not part of the two storey, its only sharing a wall.

The OP's PD rights remain, and he can use them. They don't somehow stay in abeyance for a random period of time after an extension is built, and then come back at a later date. They are there all the time

And even if it came to it, he could use the fall back argument to prevent any enforcement

 

[planningjungle]

Hi Woody,

Thanks for your reply.

I think you and I have different impressions of what the phrase "single operation" means. My impression is two structures can be said to have been erected as a "single operation" if they are constructed at the same time (or maybe only separated by a token period of time) and they somehow rely on each other (e.g. by being physically attached to one-another, etc). In my opinion, it would still be a "single operation" even if there is no internal connection (e.g. door) and no open-plan room between the two structures. Hence why, in this particular case, unless the two-storey rear extension was completed, then a sufficient amount of time passed, and then the single storey rear extension was started, in my opinion both of these structures would have been erected as a "single operation".

For the above issue, I'm afraid I don't have a more relevant appeal decision than the one that I provided. However, I did a search online and found the following additional information on the DCS website:

Question: "Permission was granted on appeal for substantial extensions to a detached property in a conservation area. My client now wishes to create a basement room under a raised rear patio, accessed via a staircase from the permitted extension. The completed development would look no different from the approved scheme save for some windows in the patio retaining wall. Can the basement be built as permitted development?"

Answer: ... "Assuming that the authorised extensions have not yet been built, the basement would be permitted development if the requirements of class A are satisfied and the works are carried out first. But if the new works and permitted extensions are constructed in a single operation, the approach adopted in R ex parte Watts v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [2002] suggests that it would not be possible to rely on the permission granted under class A. Neither would the works be permitted development if the extensions have already been built."

http://www.dcservices.co.uk/news/1110348/

He could have built the conservatory conversion before the two-storey one under PD, even after getting permission for the two storey extension but before starting it. He can also build it afterwards as soon as the main two storey structure is complete, as his conversion is not part of the two storey, its only sharing a wall.

I agree with the first part of the above, but not with the second part. In my opinion, even if the two-storey rear extension was completed, and then the single-storey rear extension was started as a separate operation, it would still be the case that when assessing the latter against Class A "the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse" would be the combination of both extensions. From the photo provided, it appears that this would be contrary to (at least) limitation A.1(g).

As an example of the above type of conclusion, please see the following appeal decision:

http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/ViewCase.asp?caseid=2179706&coid=2162696

In the above appeal, the proposed single storey rear extension, if assessed solely by itself, would have complied with Class A. However, the Inspector noted that the proposed extension would be attached to an existing extension (that had been completed several years earlier), and stated that the combination of both extensions would be contrary to A.1(h). This means that the Inspector considered that "the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse" would be the combination of both extensions.

The OP's PD rights remain, and he can use them. They don't somehow stay in abeyance for a random period of time after an extension is built, and then come back at a later date. They are there all the time

Neither of the two issues that I've mentioned is a case of the property's PD rights somehow staying in abeyance. The first issue is the case that a single operation can't rely on a mixture of PP from the Council and PD rights, and the second issue is the case that the single storey rear extension would be contrary to (at least) one of the limitations of Class A.

Thanks,
Steve

 

[Andyk78]

How the hell would the average person looking to add a PD to their home know to find or even begin to look at this amount of info and in depth as this is wayyyyy beyond me!!
I just went on the planning portal and punched in the interactive guide and its says if you are happy that you meet the criteria then you can go ahead with your PD.
The proposed single storey meets the PD criteria listed on that site and no where mentions any variations of sharing a single wall with an existing extension or structure? So if the average joe was to proceed then how the hell would he know he's in the wrong as all these scenarios don't come to light on the website which is surely the right place to find out for anyone out there.
Wow seems like the website needs an overhaul to make these things clearer then OR you need a phd in planning rules and the various scenarios that ARE NOT listed on the website that is supposed to be there to make things clear cut for you......I give up!! May just leave it as a conservatory at this rate as doesn't seem worth the bleedin hassle!! Thanks for everyone's input though, you are the experts and your knowledge in these areas is way above and beyond mine.

 

[tony1851]

@Andy; people here have given their views on the rules and interpretation, and that's a good thing. Your post has made people think carfully about the issues involved.

The advice on the planning portal site is very basic, and I'm sure a lot of people come off it more confused than before.

Regardless of whose right and whose wrong, why not just build the room as you want it? Even if the council found out about it, in practice what can they do? You might get a snotty letter threatening this, that and the other, but LPAs have to be careful before they actually take enforcement action. I'm sure in your case that they wouldn't do anything, because in the guidelines for enforcement, it states that it is not appropriate for a 'minor or technical breach where no harm has occurred'. Your case would be a technical breach only, as by definition no harm would have been done to the neighbour because the single-storey part on its own would be pd.

FWIW my advice is not to throw the towel in, but to just get on with it.

 

[Andyk78]

Cheers Tony, appreciate what you are saying, just want to get on with it and thought this would have been pretty straight forward, but learning fast that when it comes to building/planning/regs etc things start to get complicated very quickly
I think I will consider my options again after I have completed the work on the side extension. Then again I may feel different in the morning my head is just spinning from it all at the moment after trying to read jungle steves info above haha, only joking no offence Steve.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Aye just do it.