Just got refused a 6m large home extension and dont understand why

[platforminc]

Hi,

I just got refused planning for a 6m larger home extension. The reason for the refusal is as follows.

XXXXX Council can confirm that the above proposal does not meet the requirements of prior approval as the proposed extension would not meet some of the permitted development criteria of Class A: A.1 (J) the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse, and would - (iii) have a width greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse

Below is a snapshot of the submitted plans. I would be grateful if someone can explain the reason for the refusal to me, the road behind me got same approval.

Existing

Proposed

 

[garyo]

The notch that sticks out the back (old cold house?) is the problem, making your proposal subject to side extension rules.

Is that notch part of the original building? Did the other neighbours leave that detail off their plans?

Presumably the conservatory isn't original?

 

[garyo]

Looking again, the notch and also the existing kitchen side extension may not be original either, so it's definitely a wrap around you're proposing!

 

[platforminc]

So should the notch have been demolished ? or would the attached be acceptable ?
The green is the proposed new wall, and the red is a window. The manhole can come forward but lets assume its where it is now.

 

[garyo]

If the side extension parts aren't original, then you're still proposing a wrap around because your new build is touching the other extension:

 

[wessex101]

If the side extension parts aren't original, then you're still proposing a wrap around because your new build is touching the other extension:

If you look at the photos from OP's other posts the garage and side extension certainly do not look original.

If I was the OP I would go for a smaller extension, maybe 4 metres out and open up the existing dining room and I'm guessing the old kitchen. That would be more likely to get planning permission and would give a much better layout to the house. These big 6 metre extensions just create dead space in the middle of the house, the old kitchen and dining room will be very dark and uninviting, I bet no one would ever use them if that monster extension ever gets built. Less is more.

 

[platforminc]

It's not original. You are right

 

[Leofric]

Isn't the situation that you have been informed your proposals don't come under Permitted Development rather than planning permission has been
refused ? (although it might still get refused if you submitted a formal planning application )

 

[mattylad]

You can always ring your local planning dept up and ask them to explain it to you, also what do they suggest as a remedy?

 

[platforminc]

What they have said is that you see that nudge which isn't part of the original house but an extension done by someone 30 yrs ago, the 6m should not extend to cover the entire width of the house but rather start from the side of that notch, this means an L shape with a 1.7m setback from the neighbours extension.

 

[RichA]

A variant of the 2nd design with no access to the old extension on the left might work. You would construct it with a 50mm air gap.

What are you going to use the room behind the entrance hall for?

 

[tony1851]

The only way the 6m rear extension could be classed as permitted development to make it valid for the neighbour notification scheme would be to remove that part of the 30-year old side extension which extends beyond the rear wall - see sketch.
Otherwise, as others have pointed out, it becomes a wrap-round whereby the whole extension (ie side + rear) needs planning permission.
The aim is to completely separate the two extensions, so that there is no physical contact between them.

@RichA; I tried the trick of leaving a gap between two extensions (in my clients' case 150mm) but the council rejected the application as not being p.d. because the gap was so small that both extensions would 'read' as one. I looked further into this with several appeal cases and it appears that the gap must be 'material', and at least capable of serving some purpose, eg maintenance, so probably at least 0.8-1m? - there doesn't seem to be a consistent figure quoted anywhere. Strangely, this minimum gap does not apply with curtilage (Part E) buildings, where inspectors have approved of tiny gaps between a house and detached building, in one case down to 25mm.

 

[RichA]

This might work ok without sacrificing too much.

Kitchen is a bit smaller; but utility & shower room are better/bigger.

(Although personally I would probably squeeze showerroom & utility to left side; and have an entrance into the kitchen from the entrance hall).