Permitted Development/Planning Permission interpretation of 2 storey extension

[Rothman]

If the original 4 metre deep 2 storey extension was rejected because it protruded 1 metre beyond rear wall of set back neighbour that seems rather harsh. I would have thought your designer could have put up an argument to overcome that objection, even if it was something like lowering the eaves height etc. Have you used your re-submission on this 3 metre extension?

It was considered to have too much of an impact in the public realm. But I imagine that the neighbour's complaint may have had some sway, but the council couldn't elaborate on whether it did or not, just that it was deemed too much. Considering you can barely see the back of my house from public realm, I felt the argument fell on its face a bit.

The resubmission has been used so we go out 5m downstairs and 3m upstairs. I only originally went for 4m to be cheeky if I'm honest and see what we could get away with. If it had been approved I'd have been surprised, but at the same time laughing.

 

[Rothman]

The PD rules prevent you building a two storey extension that protrudes 3m at ground combined as it's considered to be too bulky

Do you mean protrudes more than 3m? Otherwise you're wrong.

Lifted from https://www.planningportal.co.uk/info/200130/common_projects/17/extensions

"An extension or addition to your house is considered to be permitted development, not requiring an application for planning permission, subject to the following limits and conditions:

• Extensions of more than one storey must not extend beyond the rear wall of the original house* by more than three metres."

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Yes, sorry, more than 3m.

 

[Rothman]

Yes, sorry, more than 3m.

Ok cool, I only wanted to clarify that that's what you meant, I didn't mean any offense or snarky tone.

In keeping with my original point, I only mean to highlight that the amended regulation for permitted development makes absolutely no sense to me based on what I want. I can do 3 top and bottom, or 6 on bottom only under PD, but I can't do both when upstairs is the bigger problem?

The way I see it, in the next 10-20 years, these rules will have to be reassessed again, especially in terms of what say the local authority has, because people are not going to want to live in a space that was built for people to use in the 1930s (when my house was built) that will be outdated by nearly a century, and more people are going to want to extend hassle-free because of the cost and upheaval of moving.

 

[^woody^]

PD is a generic permission so there are some necessary fixed dimensions to adhere to, else it would be impossible to set any criteria in the first place.

When you apply for permission, there are no dimensions to adhere to, as the council has the opportunity to go out and assess each application based on its merits and impact. That is why a 1m extension could be refused on one property, but a 10m extension approved on another.

 

[Rothman]

PD is a generic permission so there are some necessary fixed dimensions to adhere to, else it would be impossible to set any criteria in the first place.

When you apply for permission, there are no dimensions to adhere to, as the council has the opportunity to go out and assess each application based on its merits and impact. That is why a 1m extension could be refused on one property, but a 10m extension approved on another.

This is the crux of it.

I understand rules have to be set somewhere, but then under PD just set it hard and fast to say "you can only go out x metres from rear boundary MAX (for 1 or 2 storeys), anything else falls under PP.", don't start creating all these wishy-washy conditions that say you can do this, or you can do that, but you can't do both.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Exactly what is your problem. The PD rules are what they are, planners have a different set of criteria by which they decide planning permission, there will always be disagreement, it's the nature of planning permission.

 

[tony1851]

The PD rules prevent you building a two storey extension that protrudes 3m at ground combined

Surely p.d. allows a 2-storey extension 3m top and bottom? (subject to the other caveats).

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Tony, it should have said

more than 3m.

 

[Nakajo]

You can build 6m at ground and 3m at first. That was rather the point of the Hilton judgment.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

In theory! It's not policy yet is it so it may be possible on appeal but I suspect most clients would be very wary of this approach.

 

[tony1851]

In theory! It's not policy yet is it so it may be possible on appeal but I suspect most clients would be very wary of this approach.

It may not be 'policy', but it's the law (at least for now).
But as you say, who would support a client to do a Gina Miller on the matter of a domestic extension?

 

[Nakajo]

I would - but I have quite bolshy clients. Including the relevant text from the judgment in a covering letter, along with phrases like "I have been advised" can help things along, but yes you may need to prepare for a bit of a fight, and yes you may lose

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Would a council be legally entitled to approve something that is not policy? Or is an appeal the only way?

 

[tony1851]

Would a council be legally entitled to approve something that is not policy? Or is an appeal the only way?

I should think they would have to. Their legal department should keep the Planning dept up to speed on any legislation or case law affecting Planning.
Law always takes precedence over policy.

Presumably if a council refused something and an applicant appealed, on the basis of Hilton they could make a claim for costs against the council, because in not applying the relevant law, the council could be taken to have acted unreasonably.