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

[^woody^]

Some types of p.d., including demolition, still need a prior notification to the council.

See Martin Goodall's blog at;
http://planninglawblog.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/demolition-exemption-di

Not a shed on the back of the house though.

 

[catlad]

Just say somebody nicked it when you went away
for the weekend

 

[lt8480]

Looking at this further you are probably easiest to argue the existing "coal shed" is not part of the house (can you even stand up in it?), or simply that it is a later extension and therefore the back of the original house is the main wall (and therefore you can swallow up the earlier extension as long as the combined new extension meets PD rules).

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Still waiting .....

Still waiting .....

 

[JP_]

Don't you have to pay a fee for PD approval now anyway? Why not just pay £170 for full planning? I did that, got what I wanted without having to mess about trying to please PD rules.

 

[tony1851]

Don't you have to pay a fee for PD approval now anyway? Why not just pay £170 for full planning? I did that, got what I wanted without having to mess about trying to please PD rules.

He wants to go out 6m, and it's quite possible that the councils' policy guidelines would exclude extensions that large.

 

[Cej238]

Sorry for taking so long to post this, here's the photo of the rear, really looking forward to hearing any suggestions .View media item 101447View media item 101446

 

[^woody^]

I was going to say "dynamite" as a suggestion, but its probably not practical. OT, but planning rules have lost their way in terms of loft conversions.

Anything practical at ground floor will most likely need a full planning app and be limited in size unless there are neighbouring extensions to hide it.

 

[Cej238]

I'm currently leaning towards knocking it down, putting in a PD application on the chance it gets through. If not - appeal.

Otherwise I'm tempted to do a variant of C - say with an 80cm-1m border around the shed. Presumably we could build it with a slightly smaller border and enforcement action would be unlikely to be taken, then apply to infill the gap, which presumably would be hard to resist in isolation? If I did go with this option, how early can I apply for the full planning permission to infill the gap. Can it be done before the PD work is complete? Or do I need to complete the PD work first (which would be more expensive and time consuming).

If that fails, then I guess I'm back to a 3.5m regular PP application.

Thanks for all the advice.

 

[tony1851]

@op, I recently had this very problem with a client. A planning consultant has advised us that if the extension is removed and the wall made good in matching brickwork before re-submitting a new application, then you start from scratch and the 6m extension would be pd. The rational for this is that it would be difficult - if not impossible - for the LPA to determine where the original rear wall was.
There is also case law that you start with the building as it is (ie immediately before making an application) rather than how it might have been previously.

 

[wessex101]

@op, I recently had this very problem with a client. A planning consultant has advised us that if the extension is removed and the wall made good in matching brickwork before re-submitting a new application, then you start from scratch and the 6m extension would be pd. The rational for this is that it would be difficult - if not impossible - for the LPA to determine where the original rear wall was.
There is also case law that you start with the building as it is (ie immediately before making an application) rather than how it might have been previously.

Not disagreeing with you, especially with a planning consultant's advice but I was doing some research on this recently and as usual with all Planning matters there are various conflicting opinions. But I found some cases where the planners can take in to account a previous original rear addition/sticky out bit that has been demolished. Trouble is my laptop died yesterday so I've lost the reference documents.

You would like to think that the planners would take a more pragmatic view and treat these cases with more common sense, trouble is a lot of them are pedantic little ****s who seem to relish buggering up peoples perfectly reasonable plans.

 

[tony1851]

You would like to think that the planners would take a more pragmatic view and treat these cases with more common sense, trouble is a lot of them are pedantic little ****s who seem to relish buggering up peoples perfectly reasonable plans.

In the NPPF, there is a section on Enforcement.
Enforcement is of course at the discretion of the council, but it clearly states in the NPPF that "enforcement may not be appropriate for a minor or technical breach where no harm has occurred".
I think that if a lean-to was demolished and a 6m extension built - it could be argued that it is a technical breach only, because the final result (ie a 6m extension) would be the same whether or not there was a pre-existing lean-to.