Permitted development in conservation area

[DC1977]

I'm sorry this is confusing.

So you have planning permission, and you've basically built the extension already.

Now after the event the council are changing their mind, and your neighbors are being ****s about it?

Its a bit longwinded but:
1) Got permission for the ground floor side and rear which is now substanstially built but roof not finished yet.
2) Put in for a 1st floor side extension set back from the front, several neighbours objected, the council said it was still ok, and then last minute refused. They wouldnt allow us to amend the app as we hadnt taken pre app advice (which you pay for)
3) So to avoid issues paid for pre app advice and resubmitted a new application. This time was advised a part first floor rear would be ok. Then 12 neighbours objected, one neighbour went around the other neighbours at the rear and got 11 neighbours to object. So then the council went back on their pre app advice and refused.

So Im just wary of how to proceed due to the hassle above, which has lasted over a year now.....

 

[sxturbo]

Oh I see sorry.

Neighbors sound like an arse.

So from the advice given it sounds like you will have to apply for a change on planning for the parapet.

I would imagine this shouldn't be an issue as it "should" blend in more with the existing building more so than a standard pitched roof or flat roof.

 

[^woody^]

The thing is, you could add the parapet after the work is completed anyway under PD.

So you should point this out in a nice way if you are minded to apply for a variation now.

As for neighbour objections, they don't mean jack if they are not valid planning objections. The common "I don't like it" or "it will affect my property value" and suchlike are irrelevant. If the proposed work meets local planning policy then it should be approved regardless of who objects. There is the concept of impact on neighbour's "amenity", and that is subjective, but that only applies for things like overbearing, and shading or suchlike.

It's difficult to see how a side extension can affect the amenity of 12 neighbours.

 

[DC1977]

The thing is, you could add the parapet after the work is completed anyway under PD.

So you should point this out in a nice way if you are minded to apply for a variation now.

As for neighbour objections, they don't mean jack if they are not valid planning objections. The common "I don't like it" or "it will affect my property value" and suchlike are irrelevant. If the proposed work meets local planning policy then it should be approved regardless of who objects. There is the concept of impact on neighbour's "amenity", and that is subjective, but that only applies for things like overbearing, and shading or suchlike.

It's difficult to see how a side extension can affect the amenity of 12 neighbours.

They used the "heritage" line, that it would be out of character with what is existing. And that it would set a precedent for future development. Although similar extensions exist two roads away...
Some neighbours complained about amenity with regards to the rear extension but it is set back several metres from anyones boundary and the council have agreed there is no impact on neighbours...

The rear extension wouldn't be seen from anywhere in the public realm!

Been dragging on a while now dont want to mess things up and give them another reason to mess with our plans. My dad is helping with the build and wants to get on with it as he is near retirement!

 

[^woody^]

They used the "heritage" line, that it would be out of character with what is existing. And that it would set a precedent for future development.

Which is nonsense if the extension is appropriately designed.

Planning is a facilitating and not a restricting concept, which is why there are necessary rules but as long as the rules are adhered to development is permitted and even encouraged.

The key thing is to be properly advised, and not be be afraid of standing up to planners if you are correct. Much of planning policy is prescriptive so there is no grey, and where there is subjectivity it's just a case of presenting a viable argument.

 

[wessex101]

No, because the definition of "original" and "existing" are different.

In your scenario, the 4m is from the original real elevation, not the existing.

So I'm struggling to understand how using the definition of "existing" means you can alter an extension that was the subject of a planning application under permitted development? Apart from anything, what class of permitted development would include adding a parapet wall, Class A or B or C?

As the neighbours are already sharpening their pitchforks and lighting their torches and it seems the planners have already got their eye on this one, I really cannot see that strategy ending well.

 

[DC1977]

So I'm struggling to understand how using the definition of "existing" means you can alter an extension that was the subject of a planning application under permitted development? Apart from anything, what class of permitted development would include adding a parapet wall, Class A or B or C?

As the neighbours are already sharpening their pitchforks and lighting their torches and it seems the planners have already got their eye on this one, I really cannot see that strategy ending well.

Would it be Class B?

 

[DC1977]

Which is nonsense if the extension is appropriately designed.

Planning is a facilitating and not a restricting concept, which is why there are necessary rules but as long as the rules are adhered to development is permitted and even encouraged.

The key thing is to be properly advised, and not be be afraid of standing up to planners if you are correct. Much of planning policy is prescriptive so there is no grey, and where there is subjectivity it's just a case of presenting a viable argument.

The council now use an external heritage consultant who has been completely over the top, but they are not prepared to go against what she says for some reason.....

 

[DevilDamo]

Sorry if Im being thick, does this agree with @DevilDamo 's point, which does make sense....

It makes sense as it’s correct and the normal/logical way to think about it. Because you’re in a Conservation Area, you had to apply formally for your wrap around extension. No part of this extension would comply with Class A. Because of that, any changes to it cannot be carried out under PD... as the part you’re applying PD to... isn’t PD. That’s like saying you’re going to add a PD roof to a two storey side extension.

In another scenario, if a house has been extended in the past with or without formal Planning, if elements of those extensions comply with the PD guidelines, then they can be altered under PD. Probably happens more when people have added a 3sq.m porch, two storey side and single storey rear extension. The porch and rear extension can still be modified under PD but the side extension cannot.

 

[Nakajo]

Because you’re in a Conservation Area, you had to apply formally for your wrap around extension.

Eh?

 

[DevilDamo]

What’s eh?

Conservation Area => Designated Area => No side extensions via PD.

 

[Nakajo]

Wraparound extensions (of the widths implied by that term) aren't PD.

 

[DC1977]

Wraparound extensions (of the widths implied by that term) aren't PD.

I think thats what @DevilDamo is saying, due to the side element of the wraparound extension it cant be done under PD, so we had to apply for planning permission

 

[DevilDamo]

I think thats what @DevilDamo is saying, due to the side element of the wraparound extension it cant be done under PD, so we had to apply for planning permission

Correct. So any changes to a non-PD extension cannot be carried out under PD.

Even if you weren’t in a CA, 99% of wraparound extensions are not considered PD anyway.

 

[Nakajo]