Opinions regarding 'width of house' in respect of side ext

[RomanAbramovich]

Recently had an offer accepted on a bungalow and assuming sale completes, I would like to erect a 'side extension'. Looking at the planning portal interactive guide, one of the constraints for permitted development of a side extension is that it's width can be 'up to half the width of the house'. The 'house' (bungalow) is 7 metres wide to the front with depth of 10 metres. however, there is also a single garage attached, which is 2.5 metres wide.

Just looking for opinion on how wide the side extension can be, given those measurements - half the width of the living quarters (3.5 metres max) ? or half the width of the entire structure (4.75 metres max) ?

 

[RomanAbramovich]

...looks like this from the front/road:

Untitled

• RomanAbramovich
• 1 Jun 2014
• 1

[/img]

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Use the maximum width so 4.75m, provided the garage was either original or has been there since before 1 July 1948.

 

[RomanAbramovich]

Use the maximum width so 4.75m, provided the garage was either original or has been there since before 1 July 1948.

Yes it's the original garage, property has never been altered (built early sixties).

Would like to project 4.3m with the side ext, and running the depth of the bungalow (10m), giving 40sq metres of living area - with a pitched roof at 90 degrees (ridge of which will be no higher than existing ridge).

The planned structure will finish only 250mm from the boundary - interactive guide on planning portal doesn't mention any restrictions with regard to boundaries - however, 5 years back I'm sure any proposed ext that was going to be within 2 metres of a boundary required planning permission.

Have I missed a crucial constraint here? Or is building to within 250mm of a neighbouring property acceptable, given the measurements above?

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Bear in mind that anything on the back of your garage will need to meet the criteria for a rear extension too

Have a read here, around pages 23 http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/100806_PDforhouseholders_TechnicalGuidance.pdf

 

[RomanAbramovich]

Bear in mind that anything on the back of your garage will need to meet the criteria for a rear extension too

Have a read here, around pages 23 http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/100806_PDforhouseholders_TechnicalGuidance.pdf[/QUOTE]

Nothing planned at the back, strictly projecting out to the side only. Hoping for something like this - if i understand the constraints correctly, the proposed ext will fall within permitted dev?

Untitled

• RomanAbramovich
• 1 Jun 2014
• 1

 

[tony1851]

Would like to project 4.3m with the side ext, and running the depth of the bungalow (10m), giving 40sq metres of living area - with a pitched roof at 90 degrees (ridge of which will be no higher than existing ridge).

Careful, here! height to the ridge must be no more than 4m to qualify as p.d.

 

[RomanAbramovich]

Would like to project 4.3m with the side ext, and running the depth of the bungalow (10m), giving 40sq metres of living area - with a pitched roof at 90 degrees (ridge of which will be no higher than existing ridge).

Careful, here! height to the ridge must be no more than 4m to qualify as p.d.

Yes the ridge will be less than 4m, it's a very shallow pitch on the existing roof (which my diagrams don't reflect).

What surprises me is that a neighbour can erect such a sizeable structure so close to the boundary, without PP - I would be seriously miffed if my current neighbours did this!!!

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Yet you seem to be proposing the same?

 

[RomanAbramovich]

Yet you seem to be proposing the same?

Yes, I am proposing the same. Simply genuinely surprised that the authorities allow a structure of this significance to be erected so close to a boundary, without any planning consent.

Assuming sale completes, I will be taking advantage of the PD rules, which will save at least 8 weeks of waiting (or more than 8 weeks if neighbours were to object)....

...so I'm happy!

 

[ban-all-sheds]

What surprises me is that a neighbour can erect such a sizeable structure so close to the boundary, without PP - I would be seriously miffed if my current neighbours did this!!!

#5

 

[cjard]

#3 too, if youre looking for high stuff next to a boundary. In many practical applications, it wouldn't really matter; side windows would have to be obscure glazed and non-opening or opening parts so high you can't realistically see out of them if you're average height. That then throws Building Regulations in relation to fire safety making it harder to put habitable rooms in positions where the neighbour's privacy is invaded. If your objection is to the height of the structure in relation to overshadowing, bear in mind that any extension cannot be higher than the original house, so the degree of additional overshadowing offered by the extension isn't likely to be significantly more than that due to the neighbouring house anyway

Neighbour objections don't automatically force applciations to take longer than 8 weeks. Many LPAs are too slow to offer a decision in 8 weeks anyway and will just overrun the clock trading on the fact that the public generally do not wish to attract their ire. The only procedural lengthening occurs if 3 or more objections are raised, at which point it becomes a committee matter and one must wait for deliberation session to be scheduled. If the LPA is slow with your app, after 8 weeks you can apply to the PI to decide your case on appeal grounds of nondetermination. In practical terms what often seems to happen is that the LPA will be quiet for a long time, then at the last minute come up with reasons to refuse and offer you the chance to withdraw, saving themselves a black mark for performance and leaving you with your free go at a second application, making changes to appease the concerns raised just before you withdrew. It's a ****ty way to deal with customers, but while planning doesn't have a private option, the only thing to do is lobby the DCLG to get their big boots on and give your LPA a kicking

 

[tony1851]

In practical terms what often seems to happen is that the LPA will be quiet for a long time, then at the last minute come up with reasons to refuse and offer you the chance to withdraw, saving themselves a black mark for performance and leaving you with your free go at a second application, making changes to appease the concerns raised just before you withdrew. It's a s way to deal with customers, but while planning doesn't have a private option, the only thing to do is lobby the DCLG to get their big boots on and give your LPA a kicking

Exactly - this happens all too often.

Perhaps one way to prevent this would be for LPAs to be required to give a minimum notice-period (14 days?) if amendments are required to obtain an approval (and this period would have to be included within the 8-week period).

That would speed the b*****s up.