Does this class as a side return extension under PD?

Joined
11 Apr 2006
Messages
2,154
Reaction score
201
Location
Berkshire
Country
United Kingdom
I'm planning a two storey rear extension to a bungalow that would be PD if alone, but I'm concerned that because it touches another extension that has full permission, then it'll be classed as a side return and therefore fall outside of PD.

Can anyone confirm that this doesn't constitute a form of side return, because the part that's doing the infill already exists under full PP?

White: Original house
Green: extension that's been there for 20 years
Red: Is this okay?

Thanks

full
 
Sponsored Links
IMO, It is not PD because:
1. combined width > half width of original
2. assuming that is a rear gable, then roof isn't compliant with rules for 2 storey (similar pitch to existing).
 
Yes, anything attaching to the green will require permission, unless you apply the Hilton case that Tony posted about (in which you only consider the proposal and not what it attaches to)
 
IMO, It is not PD because:
1. combined width > half width of original
2. assuming that is a rear gable, then roof isn't compliant with rules for 2 storey (similar pitch to existing).

Interested in your point 2 Rich, but perhaps it's my diagram. Isn't the pitch identical to the existing - i.e. the existing bungalow in white is also two storey 'dormer' bungalow with 45 degree pitches and two gable ends?
 
Sponsored Links
Can you leave a small gap between old and new, or have you got to have access through?
 
Can you leave a small gap between old and new, or have you got to have access through?

Yes - I'll leave a 10cm gap - that's no big deal to me given the intended use of inside space.

I'm more worried about Rich's question now about whether the rear facing gable end violates the 'similar pitch' clause... any view Tony?
 
AFAIK that rear gable will not be within Class A guidelines (would need flat roof or new rear pitch to match existing rear pitch), so will also be assessed under Class B (but might qualify as long as overall increase in roof of green & red is <50m3).
 
The green part is flat roof. The red part is around 40m3 but I'll work that out properly tomorrow. The red part will replace a box dormer so it's not trivial to work out the addition. There's a LDC application ten miles away from me with a similar concept - two rear facing gables on a rear extension, so I'll watch the wording that the local authority uses carefully to see if they assess under class B also.
 
As others have said it is not strictly PD. However these sorts of things that on their own probably would be PD are sometimes worth putting in for pre-application advice. I have had them be confirmed as PD by the planners (obviously having a brain switched off day). I take the view that a pre-application letter saying it is PD is as good as an LDC.

The caliber of planning officers these days is pretty poor, especially the ones who work on the domestic extension applications, so it is quite surprising some of the stuff they let slip through the net.

The words you use to describe it are quite important, keep referring to it as a REAR extension and I would avoid referring to it as a two storey....it is single storey with a room in the roof. As an example I shot myself in the foot by trying to get a small side extension under PD (when it wasn't) but I made the stupid mistake of labeling it as a porch on the drawing. The planner said it was not PD as the "porch" area was over 3 square metres, I tried to argue but I just could not steer him away from his fixation about it being a porch. If I had called it just an extension I'm confident I would have got away with it as the planner completely missed the real reason why it was not PD.
 
As others have said it is not strictly PD.

Thanks Wessex, are you referring to the fact that it touches the existing extension and therefore forms a non-compliant side extension, or the potential roof pitch problem. (or both!!)
 
The first part, I don't understand RichA's comments about the roof. The roof on your plan looks fine to me assuming the eaves and ridge heights are compliant.
 
Yes the eaves and ridge are compliant as far as I can tell when reading the guidelines.

Having done some more research last night, RichA's point is in a similar vein to the PlanningJungle loophole at number 3. In that extreme case people seem to have successfully argued that orientation of the roof is irrelevant as long as the angle of the pitch is the same. I don't see my situation as being equivalent to exploiting a loophole, but I figure that if you can rotate the roof through 90 degrees and put the ridge on the boundary then you can certainly do what I propose in my plan above!

" In theory, a Council could also try to argue that the roof pitch of this extension would not be “the same as the roof pitch of the original dwellinghouse”, which would be contrary to condition A.3(c). However, in the appeal decisions APP/R1845/X/10/2137298 and APP/A5270/X/11/2147096, which were allowed on 01/02/2011 and 08/06/2011 (respectively), the government Inspectors concluded that where the roof of an extension would have a similar angle to the main roof, but would have a different orientation, it is possible for such an extension to comply with condition A.3(c)."
(https://planningjungle.com/wp-conte...-10-Worst-Permitted-Development-Loopholes.pdf)
 

DIYnot Local

Staff member

If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.

Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.


Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local

 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top