Do I need planning Permission or Building Regs?

[tony1851]

Yes, I misunderstood his 3rd line; a small gap would solve the p.p. problem.

 

[luisdesign]

No. If the side extension extends rearwards >5m beyond the little bit of wall that sticks out, it will still need pp.

I'm confused what you are referring to here? Do you mean >3m?

However, yes, I stand corrected having double checked the new guidance, as since the time I did that extension it has been clarified in the guidance that the extension is still measured from the rear wall whether it is an extension to that wall or not.

If you have that guidance you will see this on page 23, bottom diagram.

I'd still maintain that the guidance does not support the law... but that's another issue.

ANOTHER EDIT:
It may be arguable that the guidance referred to above does not apply because the picture shows that 3m from the rear wall is brought into play because the side extension is extending beyond the rear wall too.

However, if you wanted to go down that route it'd be highly advisable to apply for a certificate of lawful development to know exactly how your council chooses to interpret this area of the law.


They could take the view that if the extension does not extend beyond any rear wall at all thenonly the rules for side extensions would apply, as I initially thought. or they could take the view that the extension is considered to fill in the gap regardless (allbeit partially) and thus be covered by side and rear extension


PS:
I'd be looking at, rather than an insignificant and awkward gap such as 100mm... creating a 1.3m square yard area that can be opened up to the house by introducing full height open-able doors/windows to all the rooms that face it.

 

[tony1851]

The plan at 'A' would need planning permission because, following the Guidance to the GPDO, the short wall marked 'X' would be regarded as a rear wall.
At 'B', p.p. would not be required as it is a side xtension not more than one-half the width of the house.

Untitled

• tony1851
• 27 Feb 2013
• 1

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

if there's a 100mm gap between the rear reception room and the extension. Then it would just be classed as a side extension

 

[luisdesign]

The plan at 'A' would need planning permission because, following the Guidance to the GPDO, the short wall marked 'X' would be regarded as a rear wall.
At 'B', p.p. would not be required as it is a side xtension not more than one-half the width of the house.

Untitled

• tony1851
• 27 Feb 2013
• 1

Yes, this was my understanding and why I suggested designing out planning - though I am questioning the bottom diagram on page 23 of this document:



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

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Hmm, that's pretty interesting, why had I never noticed that cheeky fella before!

 

[tony1851]

This issue arises because of poor drafting of the 2008 revision to the GPDO.

The term 'the rear wall' as defined in the Guidance apparently means any rear-facing wall. This is illogical because, properly speaking, a house can have only 1 rear wall.

This causes problems when a house has an outrigger. as many Victorian terrace houses do.

While planning inspectors taking appeals always follow the Technical Guidance on this point, I don't think the issue has been tested properly in a court.

Surely 'the' rear wall (definite article) can only refer to one wall, ie the wall furthest out in plan.

 

[luisdesign]

This issue arises because of poor drafting of the 2008 revision to the GPDO.

The term 'the rear wall' as defined in the Guidance apparently means any rear-facing wall. This is illogical because, properly speaking, a house can have only 1 rear wall.

This causes problems when a house has an outrigger. as many Victorian terrace houses do.

While planning inspectors taking appeals always follow the Technical Guidance on this point, I don't think the issue has been tested properly in a court.

Surely 'the' rear wall (definite article) can only refer to one wall, ie the wall furthest out in plan.

I completely agree. As mentioned above, the trouble is that the guidance does not always follow the law... and this only helps confuse things - there are instances of this throughout the entire guidance document.

Such as in Part E, where the guidance says that a structure under this part should not adjoin the main building whereas the actual wording of the law makes no reference to this "guided" restriction (unlike the old rules which DID impose 5m distance requirements within the law)!

Or indeed, the topic we have here!

The way I see it any council can interpret this in one of two ways:

1. The extension does not extend beyond any rear wall at all. Because it is an extension out of the side and not an extension out of a rear wall. and so be permitted.
OR
2. That it is considered to "in-fill" the area even though it does not (at least not completely). and so not be permitted

I get the feeling that the diagram illustrating the extension projecting beyond a rear wall is the key point to take. To me, it is showing that if you trigger the rule for not extending beyond 3m of a rear wall then it applies to all rear walls... however this would mean that if you are only doing a side extension then you could potentially get away without triggering this rule.

This is a prime example of why industry professionals should be used to draft this sort of thing...

 

[mobad]

I have been to the local council this afternoon and spoke to a planning officer and a building regs officer.

Planning officer said even with PP there is a strong chance my proposed side extension would be rejected.
The reason why is apparently the side tunnel is something all houses have for character and an infill can only be a minimum of upto 3m.

I asked if it would be ok to have a gap from the rear reception into the side tunnel but he did not entertain the idea at all.

How do I go proceed now as I seem pretty stuck now?

Furthermore an issue - The neighbour 2-3 years back did exactly the same side extension exceeding 3m (doubt they had planning permission). Would this help in favour of us getting a side extension?

At the moment the side space is empty/redundant and due to the porch that was prebuilt before we bought the house (made out of wood and glass) we can never access that area unless we broke down the porch...

 

[luisdesign]

To mobad,

Just because someone else has an extension that you would like to replicate doesn't mean you are allowed to do that. Like you said yourself, it is likely they didn't even ask permission for it... so it was not in line with the rules. The other thing to remember is that the council must enfore the rules at the time... so previous extension may have been allowed at the time they were proposed... even though you may no longer be able to do the same.

I'd recommend that now is the point where you need to be employing a professional to work up your design options and go into your exact and specific circumstances in more detail.

It'd be interesting to explore planning jungles point 2 here in order to help maximise your potential... but again, you'd probably be better of engaging a designer to help you navigate things as they'd be able to work up detailed options for your specific circumstances

 

[jeds]

How do I go proceed now as I seem pretty stuck now?

The idea of leaving a small gap between the rear wall and the proposed extension so that it could be classed as a side rather than rear extension isn't supported by guidance and I think it's unlikely the local authority would approve it. Your only option really is to make an application anyway and go to appeal to see if you could get a favourable decision there. Otherwise you could build a 3m extension off the rear wall and at least make use of part of the dead space.

 

[geraldthehamster]

How do I go proceed now as I seem pretty stuck now?

The idea of leaving a small gap between the rear wall and the proposed extension so that it could be classed as a side rather than rear extension isn't supported by guidance and I think it's unlikely the local authority would approve it. Your only option really is to make an application anyway and go to appeal to see if you could get a favourable decision there. Otherwise you could build a 3m extension off the rear wall and at least make use of part of the dead space.

What's absurd is that increasingly literal and reductionist guidance based on poorly thought out regulations produces odd-looking and dysfunctional buildings, with inefficient gaps and wasted space. A a more sensible approach would be to review the PD regulations to allow tidy in-fill. As the government's eagerly-awaited relaxation of planning laws will no doubt fail to do.

Cheers
Richard

 

[indus]

Reading through this thread it seems that either I have been very lucky or have misunderstood the issue.

My house, as it was originally built, is a similar shape. The small recessed 'rear facing wall' attaches to my neighbour. He then has an identical rear facing wall and a mirror image of my house.

That space created on the side is part of my garden/patio (and the same for my neighbour)

I've never thought to build on that side, it would look awful and overbearing for my neighbour.

However I have had a variety of permissions passed and endless discussions with the planning officers about what is possible. They have NEVER regarded that recessed rear facing wall as the rear wall of my property for planning purposes.

They have always used the 'main' rear facing wall as the rear wall when discussing all my proposals.

 

[diynoob]

What are the reasons for trying to avoid planning permission? Is it expensive? Or is it the time taken for them to process it?

 

[^woody^]

Nobody likes rejection