GDPO: Does going "Around" rather than "Through" a Side Elevation for rear extension

Joined
22 Nov 2017
Messages
55
Reaction score
0
Country
United Kingdom
Hello,

We want to do a 6m, full width rear extension under permitted development. Unfortunately, we have an attached coal shed, approx 1m x 1m attached to the rear corner of our house. This means that an initial "larger home extension" PD application has been refused as our proposal would have resulting as we would contravene (j)(iii):

(j) the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse, and would –
(i) exceed 4 metres in height,
(ii) have more than a single storey, or
(iii) have a width greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse


We have thought about either:

1. Building Extension A, marked below under PD, and then trying to apply for regular planning permission to infill Extension B.

or:

2. Building extension C, that leaves a 20cm gap around the coal shed, and then trying to apply for regular planning permission to infill the coal shed.

Are either of the above options viable?

Thanks for any advice!
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1272.jpg
    IMG_1272.jpg
    213.8 KB · Views: 441
  • IMG_1273.jpg
    IMG_1273.jpg
    48.4 KB · Views: 440
Sponsored Links
Unfortunately neither of those options are viable; the 20cm gap is far too small - there are a number of appeal cases where planning inspectors have determined that such a gap is not relevant. You would probably be looking at a gap of around 1m to stand a chance of getting planning permission.
It is a ridiculous state of affairs when a tiny structure can cause a project to become unworkable.
 
Thank-you for your reply.

Yes, really really ridiculous!

While I have assumed our coal shed is most likely "original" - I don't really know either way. Several of our neighbors, including our attached neighbor don't have one and show no signs of having ever had one. Our PD refusal was over two years ago and we have had submissions for some loft work in the interim. We have also considered demolishing the coal shed now and resubmitting either with the shed omitted, or directly highlighting the fact that it wasn't "original" and is now demolished.

This seems like a potentially low-success option, but I also don't see that there is much to lose. We don't want to/can't move - but due to family size, could really do with the extra space. But I sense we are otherwise drifting towards something 3.5m max.

Is there anything you think we are missing?

Thanks!
 
You need to be careful about demolishing the coal shed.
Normally, demolition of a building or part of a building requires an application for prior approval from the LPA.
This is so that they can check that the method of demolition is safe, and does not unduly impact on neighbouring dwellings.
If you do not advise the LPA of the demolition beforehand, it makes any subsequent development of the site unlawful.

Again, this is ridiculous in the case of such a small structure, but your LPA is being ridiculous in rejecting your original
6m application on the basis of the 'side wall' rule, so you can count on them being equally ridiculous if you demolish without notifiction.
 
Sponsored Links
Whilst I’m inclined to agree to the general sentiment aired in this thread regarding the pedantry shown by Local Government, at what point does a coal shed type of structure or outside WC or workshop or any other structure attached to the rear of a house become part of the house and clearly an extension in your eyes? If a strict policy is not adopted then how is that decision determined by the Planners? Should it be on the size: 2m2, 3m3, 4m2, 5m2 maybe or some other criteria? Please explain.
 
Should have knocked the shed down first. There is another recent thread about a similar situation. No permission would have been required for that.

If you had someone draw up the plans, then they should have advised you about this and not put plans in that would be contrary to the guidelines.
 
There are several planning appeal cases on the Planning Jungle site on what constitutes a side wall. Three refer to single-storey side walls of depths varying from 0.55m to 1.2m, and determine that they do form a side facing wall; one appeal case states that a single storey extension projecting 0.6m does not constitute a side wall - so it's a moot point.
However, OP refers to a coal bunker, which may only be half a storey high(?) and presumably very small in area, so maybe stick the council out - they may be wary of attempting enforcement on such a completely trivial issue.
As above, OP may have been badly-advised in the first place.
 
Unfortunately, we were advised poorly when when did our first PD application. Had we known then what we knew now (or even if our old architect did!), things would likely be different.

Tony, could you please explain what you mean by: "maybe stick the council out - they may be wary of attempting enforcement on such a completely trivial issue."? Do you mean appealing a further refusal? Presumably not building anyway?

As for demolition, as I'm reading it you and Woody have said opposite things - one that we could demolish the shed without permission; the other than we need prior approval.

Finally, the location plan that our builder has provided shows our coal shed sticking out (but then it also shows a load of other recent additions to neighboring properties). Is that a problem? If we tried our luck in arguing that the coal shed wasn't original is the site plan likely to be evidence against us?

On the basis that getting a bigger extension is more important that starting building quickly, what would you say is our best bet?
  1. Don't demolish the shed, submit a new PD application omitting the shed from the drawings and hope for the best. Appeal if it is refused.
  2. Demolish the shed, submit a new PD application as above. (Has the advantage of not being there if they did a site visit, but also the proof we demolished it without permission)
  3. Submit a PD as per Option C above, but with low chance of success as case-law suggests such small gaps between walls aren't acceptable. Or maybe with a bigger gap, but build a smaller gap on the expectation enforcement probability would be low (But am I right in thinking that tiny gaps between houses and outbuilding are ok?)
  4. Something creative with a extension + out building that we later link up via proper planning permission.
  5. Submit full planning application. (But be limited to 3.5m I presume.
Anything else?

Thank-you for all the advice.
 
No permision is required.

The Town and Country Planning (Demolition – Description of Buildings) Direction 2014

LPA may interpret the demolition as demolition of a part of a building, which is a different matter and would be construed as 'development'.
Even if classed as permitted development, a prior notification should be made.
 
Last edited:
Suggestion;

To stop all this faffing about, OP could; take a few pics of said bunker as evidence of its' small size; demolish it; apply for the full 6m extension and when the LPA refuse it, appeal.
To prevent a decent extension on the basis of a poxy 1m x 1m storage structure would be ridiculous, and hopefully a Planning Inspector would concur.
 
Whilst I’m inclined to agree to the general sentiment aired in this thread regarding the pedantry shown by Local Government, at what point does a coal shed type of structure or outside WC or workshop or any other structure attached to the rear of a house become part of the house and clearly an extension in your eyes? If a strict policy is not adopted then how is that decision determined by the Planners? Should it be on the size: 2m2, 3m3, 4m2, 5m2 maybe or some other criteria? Please explain.
Still waiting .....
 
The Town and Country Planning (Demolition – Description of Buildings) Direction 2014

LPA may interpret the demolition as demolition of a part of a building, which is a different matter and would be construed as 'development'.
Even if classed as permitted development, a prior notification should be made.
Even if it is classed as part of a building - which btw is not just because it's joined to a building, and even if the Direction does apply to this type of work, then it's still PD and no prior notice app would be required.
 

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