PD and half-width extension rule

[Rahz]

Hi forum,

My house is 'T'shaped like this:

[code:1]
_________________
| |
| |
| |
| |
______ ______
| |
|___|
[/code:1]

with the projection to the rear. I'd like to fill in the corners, ground floor only to make a square layout.

I'm trying to understand the guidance on parts that extend side walls - that's what each corner would be.

Technical Guidance.pdf states:

On page 25 "the width of that part of the extension cannot exceed more than half of the width of the house". Do I take part to mean each corner separately?

On page 27 it suggests the parts would need to join to be considered as affecting the width. In my case the two parts would not join, as the existing projecting structure would fall in between.

Would this again be reason to consider the two corners separately? If not then I can't use PD because the width of both corners together exceed half the width of the house.

Also, the projection would need a lowering of the roof to connect the two as it's a hip, resulting in a lean-to roof spanning the width of the house.

Can anyone please advise? Unfortunately my LA's response is to go for a Certificate of Lawfulness to get the answer.

Has anyone tried this with their LA?

Thanks

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

That to me is two rear extensions not two side extensions therefore ‘the half the width of the house’ stuff is not applicable. I’m not quite following your roof question? Unless the existing leg is single storey and your proposed is also single storey it sounds like it’ll look a dogs dick! Is the house two storey or a bungalow? Are the proposed extensions to be single or two storey? The front of the house is the long face at the top of your sketch presumably?

 

[Rahz]

Thanks for your reply. I'll clarify...

The current house is 2 storey with this projection only single storey. The projection (breakfast area attached to kitchen) has it's own hipped roof. I wish to extend just the ground floor either side of this extension to match the current rear wall of this ground floor projection. This would result in a structure spanning the entire width of the house on the ground floor and the roof would then be a shallower lean-to, again across the entire width.

I, too would like to consider it as two separate extensions to the rear, reading the paragraph at the bottom of page 22. If I do that, then it's clear I'll be ok. I was just wondering if anyone's tried this so I might use it as precedence.

Yes, the top of the picture denotes the front of the house.

Hope that all means we can banish the vision of an animal's privates to the darkest dungeons of our minds... eew.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

So provided you meet the following criterea your development should come under PD all assuming you're not in a conservation area or other oddity (Your Local Authority Planning Department can confirm this over the phone).

* No more than half the area of land around the 'original house'* would be covered by additions or other buildings.
* No extension to be higher than the highest part of the roof.
* Single-storey rear extension must not extend beyond the rear wall of the 'original house'* by more than three metres if an attached house or by four metres if a detached house.
* Maximum height of a single-storey rear extension of four metres.
* Maximum eaves height of an extension within two metres of the boundary of three metres.

However if and when you come to sell, doing it under PD will not stop a solicitor asking for proof that it did not need Planning Permission which can (as is evident on the Forums) hold up and cause a sale to fall through at any time in the future. This is where your Certificate of Lawful Development is useful. If you intend moving in the few years it would probably be worth doing, if you intend staying put for a fair while then you'll probably be ok but you never can tell, all depends on the buyer and their solicitor.

 

[Rahz]

It would be good to know if it should be covered by PD before applying for the certificate of lawfulness.

No issues with cons area. As for the criteria, the only one I have issue with is this half-width rule - which you don't mention below...so...

...you really don't think the extensions wouldn't be considered as extending beyond the side elevations?? I know the guidance doc shows a semi-detached house which has a clearer meaning for side elevations.

Ok, I think I'll plan in some time for the certificate....

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Edit

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

EDIT: My bad, having had a read through Technical Guidance.pdf page 22 suggests this would be two side extensions afterall. Sorry! Better get your tape measure out and apply for that certificate if each extension is less than half the width of the house. Otherwise full PP will be required.

 

[Rahz]

There you go!

So as long as EACH extension is less than half the width, I should be ok.

And if I was to modify the projection - by changing the roof and rebuilding the wall but in exactly the same position but, say, with a slighting larger door, then again, I should be ok?

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

And if I was to modify the projection - by changing the roof and rebuilding the wall but in exactly the same position but, say, with a slighting larger door, then again, I should be ok?

Sorry, not quite following the door bit?

 

[Rahz]

So far the comments have been about the extensions and I based that on the premise that I would be building off the existing projection.

Now if I was to modify the projection - not in floor space, but perhaps knocking it down and rebuilding it (using the same foundations) to facilitate a wider french door that is currently in place, has this got anything to do with the PD? The reason I ask is that perhaps it would be seen as a single extension spanning the width of the house and therefore failing the PD criteria.

'Hope that makes sense.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

You're into another grey area there again which if you approached your LA i suspect would have them recommending an application for a Cert.

 

[Rahz]

Just heard from my LA that they have discussed it and would consider it as two separate side extensions. I didn't mention what I might be doing with the bit in the middle, on the risk of never getting a response...