conservatory and planning permission

[hettie]

Hi yes I see the point about adding extension to extension ad infinitum under PD but this wouldn't be possible since say we actually decided not on a conservatory but on a full bricked buidling with the roof height lower and everything complying with PD. We could then not add any further extensions on because then we would be going over the 4m from original house ruling (and to get a room of any size we would be in our neighbour's garden over the back! but that is incidental). My point being there are many aspects to PD to protect the land from having extension after extension added such as the 4m from back of house rule (or 8m with this new legislation and nerighbour consultation thingumy) and the not more than half the width of the house for side extensions! I have searched and searched the internet but just cannot find anything which gives me further clues! Thanks to you all for you input today - it is most appreciated and kind of you to take the time to answer my queries

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I was wondering about the new temporary relaxation of PD limits.

AFAIK a neighbour consultation application costs nothing, as long as you can DIY the drawings. If hettie were to assume that it could be done under PD, submitted the paperwork, and the council gave the go-ahead, would there be any risk down the line of the council saying "oh - hang on a mo - sorry, we got that wrong, pull it down"?

Putting in the application would force them to come to a decision.

 

[tony1851]

I might be wrong on this but I think the prior notification scheme only applies to single-storey extensions on the back of the original house, probably not on the back of a (later) side extension?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

You might be wrong, I might be wrong, the guidance might be wrong.

But if it costs nothing to bang in an application (having made sure that no neighbours consulted would actually object), then doing so would force the council to actually do something.

Seems to me there are only 2 things they could do - say it's OK, or say it's not and PP is needed. My only concern is could they say the former and then later on change their mind and get all antsy?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Oh poo - just re-read the original post - I thought the council had not been able to make their mind up - seems as though they have, and that they won't have it as PD, but hettie doesn't see why.

Surely the point is that the opinions of everyone here are irrelevant? Nobody here can give her permission to build it, and nothing anybody says here is going to change the council's position.

It might still be worth putting in the neighbour consultation application, explaining that it complies with the spirit of the new rules, but if they stick to their guns, then an application for PP will be needed. It was worth her asking for thoughts and advice originally, but after 3 pages we could talk about it here until the cows come home but it won't make a blind bit of difference.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

The point is that if we are undecided you can bet your bottom dollar the council don't really know either so are likely just erring on the side of caution!

 

[cjard]

Forget the guidance, it is not the wording of the law. The LPA would argue your conservatory requires pp if you add it on to the extension because of clauses A1e(ii) and A1h(i) of the GPDO, namely that the enlarged part of the dwelling house is not permitted if it exceeds 4m in height. By joining a new conservatory to an existing extension the whole lot becomes "the enlarged part of the dwelling house" and because some part of the enlarged part is over 4m it couldn't have totally been built under pd rules. It's why you can't keep on adding pd extensions to other pd extensions, because the law recognises the original house and the enlarged part. Connecting enlargements to each other merges them into one enlargement. If you're going to enlarge your house under pd the resulting total enlargement must meet the pd criteria else it needs planning

if you really want a conservatory in that place under pd, build it as a separate glass box 6 inches from the rear wall of the existing extension and set inwards by 1m from the boundary-facing wall of the extension. This means 1m of it will be directly behind the original house and it can be connected there. It should project back whatever amount you like up to the normal pd limits (not the neighbour consultation limits because your conservatory extends beyond the side wall of the original house so it is not a rear only extension) Note that doing this will require the construction of 4 glass walls, not 3. For the extra cost if doing so you may decide that seeking some free application guidance from the council and depending on what concerns they raise, go the route of a normal planning app. The trouble 30cm causes eh? Maybe you should lower that instead

 

[geraldthehamster]

if you really want a conservatory in that place under pd, build it as a separate glass box 6 inches from the rear wall of the existing extension and set inwards by 1m from the boundary-facing wall of the extension. This means 1m of it will be directly behind the original house and it can be connected there. It should project back whatever amount you like up to the normal pd limits (not the neighbour consultation limits because your conservatory extends beyond the side wall of the original house so it is not a rear only extension) Note that doing this will require the construction of 4 glass walls, not 3.

And the planning guidance is supposed to produce better buldings

Cheers
Richard

 

[planningjungle]

Hi hettie,

As tony1851 and cjard have indicated, the key point is that because the proposed extension would be attached to the existing extension, it would be necessary to assess the combined extension against several of the limitations and conditions of permitted development legislation. For your situation, this combined extension wouldn't be permitted development, because its maximum height of 4.3m would be contrary to limitations A.1(e)(ii) and A.1(h)(i) of Part 1 Class A.

From a technical point of view, the reason it would be necessary to assess the combined extension is because many of the limitations and conditions of Part 1 Class A use the phrase "the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse". Overall, evidence supports the interpretation that this phrase not only applies to the proposed extension, but also includes any existing extension to which the proposed extension would be attached.

For reference, out of the appeal decisions that I've seen that have dealt with the above issue, the majority (i.e. 8 appeal decisions) have supported the above interpretation whereas the minority (i.e. 4 appeal decisions) have contradicted the above interpretation. However, more significant is the fact that the examples on pages 27 and 28 of the DCLG "Technical Guidance" document (indirectly) support the above interpretation:

http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/100806_PDforhouseholders_TechnicalGuidance.pdf

For info, the above interpretation (i.e. that it's necessary to assess the combined structure) doesn't depend on how the existing extension became lawful. For example, maybe the existing extension was PD under the previous version of Part 1 of the GPDO, or maybe it was granted PP by the Council, or maybe it was erected unlawfully and became lawful via the 4-year rule. Regardless of how the existing extension became lawful, if the proposed extension would be attached to the existing extension then the combined extension would form "the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse".

Thanks,
Steve

 

[Architexeter]

From what I understand about your proposal I'd try and get it through as a certificate application under PD.

Ignore the existing extension for your certificate application (you certainly could not do this prior to 2008 as the old rules had a cumulative volume limit but nowadays it is all set dimensions).

So you need to consider the proposed extension in the context of the original dwelling house when justifying PD. It would therefore be a rear and side extension, similar to the technical guidance p24 second diagram.

Providing you fall within the PD limits I would argue that the existing extension has a seperate permission relating to it due to its height but you are making sure that on plan you comply with the half width rule as p26 second diagram .

This may all be rubbish an there may well be an appeal decision that contradicts what I'm saying but I'd bank on if you put a convincing case together they'd go with it, as they understand PD rules less than you do.

Go for certificate in the first instance and at least you'll get a straight answer for £86. Let us know how you get on.

 

[tony1851]

From what I understand about your proposal I'd try and get it through as a certificate application under PD.

Ignore the existing extension for your certificate application (you certainly could not do this prior to 2008 as the old rules had a cumulative volume limit but nowadays it is all set dimensions).

So you need to consider the proposed extension in the context of the original dwelling house when justifying PD. It would therefore be a rear and side extension, similar to the technical guidance p24 second diagram.

Providing you fall within the PD limits I would argue that the existing extension has a seperate permission relating to it due to its height but you are making sure that on plan you comply with the half width rule as p26 second diagram .

This may all be rubbish an there may well be an appeal decision that contradicts what I'm saying but I'd bank on if you put a convincing case together they'd go with it, as they understand PD rules less than you do.

Go for certificate in the first instance and at least you'll get a straight answer for £86. Let us know how you get on.

But the conservatory could never be p.d. because the council would (correctly) regard the conservatory and the previous extension as one. This could then never be regarded as p.d. because the height of the previous extension exceeds 4m. - see post above yours.

 

[Architexeter]

Tony,

I do see your point, but I'd goive it a shot in that the planning officer is not as sharp as you are

 

[hettie]

Hi Sorry not been around for a short while and it is lovely to see an abundance of thoughts! I realised an old friend of mine was a senior planner for a neighbouring council and asked her opinion and she advised that these things are a grey area and subject to professional interpretation so she could not speak for other planners but her interpretation would match that which several of you have given in considering the extension and the proposed conservatory as a whole and that it would need planning. She set out several ways she thought we could go about it including applying for the certificate of lawful development saying it would depend on the planning officer's interpretation. So we consulted the conservatory builders who had indicated they had a contact who could draw up plans for either pp or the cert of LD and he has set to work and made his own enquiries with the council. You might remember that my own enquiries were not fruitful. The man is an ex-planner for yet another neighbouring council and as such he has access to several documents. He contacted the council and their only comment was that the planned conservatory was 50mm wider than the extension and that would mean it would need planning as it would be attached to the rear of the dwelling??????? (not sure which rule of the tech guide this is?) , although he stated it might be considered de minimis and not relevant. But we are making sure the conservatory is the same width as the extension which was intended originally. So the advice is to go for the cert of LD. If we do and it isn't given the go ahead, then we have wasted 80 something quid on it and would then need to spend 170 odd quid on the pp application. But the council seem to have advised it would be pd and would pass it as a cert of LD. Confusing as this is not the majority thought on here! He also did indicate that should we have to apply for planning if we wanted to keep the extra 2 inches that it would pass under our council's rules for pp kept within the council booklet he has access to. I will keep it updated and let you know what happens. I was quite understanding of it all and accepted we would need pp until this chap got involved and now I can't really follow it (and haven't got the time to peruse the documents he has linked to as I am hectic with other stuff at the moment.

Someone mentioned about it being irrelevant what people think on here and it is the planners' decisions. Yes I agree entirely. I was interested to hear what your thoughts would be since I am rather impatient but I realise it does not replace the actual direction on the council and I would never proceed with a project that is such a grey area without approval whether that be pp or the cert of lawful dev.

Thank you all for you input on this

Oh and someone mentioned lowering the roof of the single storey extension. That would not be possible. Our house is a bungalow with rooms upstairs and a dormer window on the front of each upstairs room. at the back therefore the roof comes down to the first storey and we had the single storey extension following the roofline up the back, so this is what gave it its height. Had we had a smaller extension we could have got within the measurements but we wouldn't have had the room we wanted and in any case we had no problem being granted permission. No one objected but at that point our next door neighbour hadn't threatened to cut off our lock on the gate we added after building it with an angle grinder if we didn't give him the key. he hates being locked out of the garden. But he has not rights apart from those under the access to neighbouring land act. We have never denied him access even to do trivial upkeep that isn't covered by that act or adding cables etc to the side. But he decided he wanted to paint a strip on the bottom when we were on holiday and demanded a key. He didn't speak to us for a year after this incident but has calmed down. However I do not think he will like our plans but I don't think if we went for pp he has any grounds to object. they are bonkers though. They complained about the person in the house opposite having a locked gate to their garden. As neighbourhood watch coordinator at the time (for that read snoop!) she said she could not carry out her role and check their garden! Nutty or what? They seem to think they are lord of the manor...oh well they are back to buying my son birthday presents but there will be a hoo ha I'm willing to bet! Watch this space...

 

[hettie]

Hi
Thought I would update this - some of you may be interested in the outcome.

We submitted for a certificate of lawful development and have been granted it. The council planning officer also came out to take photographs so they are well aware it is on an existing extension - he was indeed very impressed with the match of slates and bricks of the extension as it is seamless due to the fact we took care to source identical slates and the rear wall is composed of the original bricks from the house which were spare and kept up one side of the house so similarly weathered. Sorry that is a divergence but yes they granted that it was permitted development as it met all the criteria. As you will remember the only grey area was the fact that we were building on to an existing extension which had required pp but it seems they are not taking it as a whole that once again requires permission but as a separate extension which fits the criteria of PD! Oh well, not going to argue with that one! We can go ahead (once we serve party wall notice on next door which we decided to wait to do for a variety of reasons - we wanted the certificate in hand or to go around and say we were applying for pp if we had had to). Thanks for all your input and opinions.

Regards