PD or Not - Front Extension

[freddiemercurystwin]

OK chaps, bellow are the existing and the proposed plans and a photo showing the front of a house. I'm considering infilling the front behind the columns as per the proposed ground floor plan (hatched green).

So it begs the question: which wall at ground floor level would you consider to be the front wall from a Permitted Development front extension viewpoint. The blue line or the red line?

Oversound Existing Ground

• freddiemercurystwin
• 6 Jan 2016

Oversound Existing First

• freddiemercurystwin
• 6 Jan 2016

Front Ele Oversound

• freddiemercurystwin
• 6 Jan 2016

Oversound Proposed Ground

• freddiemercurystwin
• 6 Jan 2016

I'm thinking that its the blue line really but a second opinion would be appreciated.

 

[LukeB123]

Pretty horrible one! Under the terrace at ground floor (at the front) is that a wall? You could argue that maybe forms a wall that fronts a principal elevation of the house?

Otherwise that is just extra detail / support and the principal elevation (as normal principal elevations have) is the wall with the main front door and bay window and other architectural details.

Just to give a bit more weight to it, if you pulled your extension further out (sideward) I don't think that could be considered purely a side extension. I think it would be a front / side extension as it is in front of the main house section.

I'd go with Blue like you, thus needing permission, but it's not massively clear.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

thanks for replying.

Under the terrace at ground floor (at the front) is that a wall?

Along the blue dotted line? That's a wall at ground level.

Along the red dotted line its open between the columns.

 

[LukeB123]

thanks for replying.

Under the terrace at ground floor (at the front) is that a wall?

Along the blue dotted line? That's a wall at ground level.

Along the red dotted line its open between the columns.

I was referring to your existing drawing, where the red line meets a pillar / wall on the left hand side of the red dotted line (it falls just out of view on the photo, to the left of the blue van as we look at it) If that was a wall then maybe you could argue the whole thing (the wall and the 3 pillars) form a principal elevation.

Thinking about it though, even if it was a wall, everything between the red line and the blue line seems to be open space / an entrance to the main house. I would argue that is just like having a stepped entrance or walkway up to the main house, and it doesn't really start till you get to the front door (blue line).

The principal elevation in my view is the blue line on ground floor level and red line at first floor level.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

I was referring to your existing drawing, where the red line meets a pillar / wall on the left hand side of the red dotted line (it falls just out of view on the photo, to the left of the blue van as we look at it) If that was a wall then maybe you could argue the whole thing (the wall and the 3 pillars) form a principal elevation

No there's no wall there, anyway the more I think about it the more I agree it would not be PD.

 

[wessex101]

Looking at the photo especially, logic would dictate that the red dotted line is the front elevation but when the hell did the planners ever deal in logic.

If it was my client I would wimp out and suggest we get pre-app advice or give them written advice that it is not clear cut and spell out the risk if they decide to take a chance and assume it is within permitted development.

Hopefully someone cleverer than me will come up with the answer.

 

[wessex101]

Hang on I've just noticed the "front" door. I would definitely wimp out and get a pre-app. That is a tricky one.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Well I don’t really need to wimp out I’m 99% certain the front wall is the red one. I suspect the client would not want to go for it anyway and there is a whole ton of history to this job which I won’t go into but suffice to say that this proposed extension is only about 5% of what they want to ultimately achieve and a planning application is required for that anyway.

 

[cjard]

Is it PD to go the other way? suppose I had a nice detached house and wanted to turn the lounge into a car port, so I get the stihl saw out and cut most of the front wall down, leaving the columns. Did I change what was the principal elevation?
From another perspective, were you to draw this house ad label the drawing with the front elevation, would that drawing also depict what was visible through an arch, or would it just render the arch contents as an empty shape?

Are their changes being done incrementally? i.e. do this under pd, and when done, extend significantly, requiring pp?

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Its not PD cjard.

 

[cjard]

What isn't?

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Infilling the green hatch extension in the first post.

 

[cjard]

Did the council tell you that?

The more I think about it, the more I think it is. Look at this delightful barratt home: http://www.barratthomes.co.uk/new-homes/shropshire/H643901-Darwin's-Walk/plot-68/ (last picture)
If it was never fitted with a garage door then it's not entirely dissimilar to your house here (it has a hole in the front in which a car is parked); would you say that converting the garage to a habitable room by building a dwarf wall and glazing the gap was no PD, because the back wall of the garage formed part of a stepped principal elevation?

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

No that's totally different. This is not a garage it is columns and the space behind the columns is completely open. Besides I have been told by another regular on here with access to Planning Jungle that there are several appeal cases which have found that this type of development is not PD.

 

[chappers]

I would agree. That's a fairly material change to the appearance of the primary elevation.