Does maxing out on PD potentially impact subsequent PP applications.

[Brettparker]

We are looking to extend a detached house on a good size plot. We would like to convert the loft, add a side and rear 2 story extension.

The current thought is to do the loft and side extension under PD and then PP for the rear, looking to go back as far as possible.

We want to phase the work so the PD element is built before our PP application and we would probably seek a certificate of lawful development.

ideally we want to move straight onto the rear build,with as little time delay as the contractors will be on site.

My question is, if we max out under PD will the planners then take this into account and view our PP application less favourably.

Hopefully the application is based on merit, but I am anxious that the planners will only see a big overall development.

Any advice really appreciated!

 

[tony1851]

The planners can make up their own minds on this, and could well knock back your rear extension on the grounds of 'overdevelopment' - it's subjective.
Clearly your best approach would be to get pp for the rear extension first, and then do the rest, though if you are adding a dormer, that might not be pd if it impacts on the roof of the rear extension.

 

[^woody^]

Why not just do an application for a well designed harmonious scheme rather than some sort of favela inspired frankenstension?

 

[garyo]

I'm in the middle of something similar. In the green belt they seem particularly focused on over-development. Around my way they limit this to a 50% increase in floor area, so yes, your PD would count against you if you did it in that order.

Why not just do an application for a well designed harmonious scheme rather than some sort of favela inspired frankenstension?

It seems to be that in the UK it's much easier to add lots of extensions to your decrepit 1950's building than it is to knock it down and start with a modern contemporary house. We seem obsessed with street scene, everything looking uniform, etc. The last planning officer that I tried to persuade dismissed my argument of 'but I could do something much much larger under PD so please approve my application' by saying that the GPDO was a completely separate area of law to Town and Country Planning act, and of no concern to her. So that leaves me mid-Frakenstension, as you say.

 

[^woody^]

I'm in the middle of something similar. In the green belt they seem particularly focused on over-development. Around my way they limit this to a 50% increase in floor area, so yes, your PD would count against you if you did it in that order.

It seems to be that in the UK it's much easier to add lots of extensions to your decrepit 1950's building than it is to knock it down and start with a modern contemporary house. We seem obsessed with street scene, everything looking uniform, etc. The last planning officer that I tried to persuade dismissed my argument of 'but I could do something much much larger under PD so please approve my application' by saying that the GPDO was a completely separate area of law to Town and Country Planning act, and of no concern to her. So that leaves me mid-Frakenstension, as you say.

Some planners are just plain blinkered and dogmatic. There are rules as well as objectives, and it's important not to loose sight of the overall aims of the planning system - although the aims do change every couple of decades or so.

The thing is, to employ competant advisors who don't just knock out some plans for a few hundred pounds, but who know the planning system and how to get things done - and how to deal with blinkered and dogmatic planners.

My own little anecdote about "street scene". Birmingham's policy of not allowing extensions to the boundary to avoid "terracing" is defended to the death - and yet they manage to acheive this quite sucessfully with their new builds. You will struggle to get a ladder up vertically between two houses without scraping your spine.