Misinterpretation of Permitted Development rules by Council?

[jeds]

As wessex, I made a very similar application for a 5.5m extension a few months back which was against a much bigger outhouse than the OPs 1mx1m and not strictly speaking PD. But the outhouse was on the boundary with next door - which had a mirrored outhouse - and my client was on the end of the terrace so it didn't bother anybody the other side. We got the approval. I think it comes down to whether they like the overall proposal or not. If they think something's over the top they'll look for reasons. If not they'll either not look too hard or let it go.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

If not they'll either not look too hard or let it go.

Or a dopey officer just doesn't understand the rules.

 

[RichA]

Is there any potential for demolishing that element and resubmitting?

Not now no.

In what scenario can you replace an existing extension under PD?

 

[Nakajo]

I've also had one where it was accepted and one where it wasn't. But, in light of the Hilton judgment, I fail to see how the attach would not be classed as permitted development (build B followed by C). If I have a such a project in the near future (i.e. before DCLG amends the legislation), I suspect that I would be seeking a legal opinion on the matter - unless someone here can identify the flaw in my logic.

 

[jiffage]

Thanks for all the additional comments. Thoughts/questions based on what people have said.

1. I understand the rationale for putting in a full application now while appealing. Is there any sense in pushing for more than 3.5m? The supplementary planning documents for my area suggest that rear extensions should "generally not exceed 3-3.5m" and the picture illustrates 3m on a semi-detached house and 4m on a detached. The next-door but one neighbour has a 3.5m rear extension. Given that our neighbours were OK about us having a 6m extension; is there any much likelyhood that the council would permit anything larger than the 3.5m?

2. Given the Hilton judgement, is there any merit in also submitting a second permitted development application showing the boiler room removed? (And if so, what level of demolition would be required - I figure whatever happens we'll be demolishing it, so could get on with it, its just somewhat complicated by the fact that the boiler resides there!) Are there any rules about having only one permitted development application on the go at once; I'm particularly wondering if it would impact the appeal.

3. I note that appeals are make to the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the DCLG. In practice, are the appeals dealt with by the same council planning team?

 

[napoleondynamite]

Your proposed extension would only extend beyond a side wall if you are planning to retain part of the boiler room.

If your proposal is to demolish the boiler room (which removes the side facing wall), and then build your extension, you wouldn't have any problem. Maybe your drawing doesn't make it clear whether you plan to demolish the boiler room or not.

I would go back to the Council and ask whether, if you plan to demolish the boiler room first, you could build the extension as PD. Much simpler than going to appeal!

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Your proposed extension would only extend beyond a side wall if you are planning to retain part of the boiler room.

If your proposal is to demolish the boiler room (which removes the side facing wall), and then build your extension, you wouldn't have any problem. Maybe your drawing doesn't make it clear whether you plan to demolish the boiler room or not.

I would go back to the Council and ask whether, if you plan to demolish the boiler room first, you could build the extension as PD. Much simpler than going to appeal!e

No that won't work.

 

[jiffage]

The only option now is to appeal so you might as well get on with it. For such a simple thing you could do it yourself. Keep it straightforward and business like and don't whine on about so and so down the road has got this and that. Point the inspector to previous appeal decisions that show the positive result - there are plenty. The majority of appeals I have done the LPA didn't add anything to their original refusal so previous positive decisions might tip the balance. The best source of info on PD and PD appeals is the Planning Jungle. You'd need to subscribe but would be worth it in your case.

Jeds, I joined Planning Jungle but am a bit lost as to where to find the appeal details. Is there a particular document on the site or text-string I can search for to locate references to relevant appeals? Many thanks.

 

[Nakajo]

Well the Hilton one's here, but I can't say whether the Planning Jungle's interpretation of the judgment is entirely accurate: https://planningjungle.com/2016/06/...llinghouse-within-part-1-class-a-of-the-gpdo/

 

[napoleondynamite]

Your proposed extension would only extend beyond a side wall if you are planning to retain part of the boiler room.

If your proposal is to demolish the boiler room (which removes the side facing wall), and then build your extension, you wouldn't have any problem. Maybe your drawing doesn't make it clear whether you plan to demolish the boiler room or not.

I would go back to the Council and ask whether, if you plan to demolish the boiler room first, you could build the extension as PD. Much simpler than going to appeal!e

No that won't work.

In my opinion, based upon my experience, yes, it would work. If the OP asks the council I would be interested to know what the response is. If the wall is demolished then you can't extend beyond it, it doesn't exist.

 

[geraldthehamster]

Your proposed extension would only extend beyond a side wall if you are planning to retain part of the boiler room.

If your proposal is to demolish the boiler room (which removes the side facing wall), and then build your extension, you wouldn't have any problem.

I've no idea how this would work out in practice, but in Technical Guidance, "original" means "a building as it existed on 1 July 1948 where it was built before that date, and as it was built when built after that date." I don't see the words "less any bits you've knocked down in the mean time".

Cheers
Richard

 

[napoleondynamite]

Based on my experience of these applications, side walls which will be demolished, and therefore will no longer exist, will not normally be taken into account. Worth raising this with the council surely as it would be the simplest solution.

 

[tony1851]

He could raise the issue, but the council won't be bothered - they want him to make a planning application so that they can have their £172 fee.
As some Inspectors would say it's p.d., and others not, it's a moot point and the council will a chance on it - whatever the outcome, they will have had their fee.
Bottom line is that the architect was an idiot for showing it on the drawing in the first place - totally clueless.

 

[maltaron]

Its almost certain that the "boiler house" etc was the toilet and coal house of the original building and thus forms the rear and side walls. The op should have knocked them down before applying for PD.

 

[tony1851]

@ OP, see if this helps your case?

http://www.planningresource.co.uk/a...xtension-relevant-assessing-permitted-develop