Principal elevation L shaped house

[lamby2244]

Hi - I have been TOLD by my council some time ago that I do not qualify for permitted development. Sadly my wife got ill and so I put the plans to bed.

Now well again we are reviving the plans and with a little research I believe they are incorrect. They told me that I could not build in front of the principal elevation but I believe they drew an imaginary line through part of my house. The house is infact L shaped and I wish to slot the extension in a gap behind both front walls... Can you help clear this up. I have wasted time and money if this is the case.

I have uploaded the plans I have just marked up showing what I believe to be the principal elevation according to the technical guidance provided to the councils to interpret the law.

Am I bonkers or do I have a point?

Cheers

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

A plan showing the layout would help, as would a photo probably. There can only be one principal elevation, it cannot be both walls.

 

[lamby2244]

OH and here is a drawing of what the council are assuming.... It doesn't make sense.

 

[lamby2244]

A plan showing the layout would help, as would a photo probably. There can only be one principal elevation, it cannot be both walls.

This is what I was told but the Technical Guidance doc tells me otherwise....

“In most cases the principal elevation will be that part of the house which fronts (directly or at an angle) the main highway serving the house… It will usually contain the main architectural features such as main bay windows or a porch serving the main entrance” (page 7).
“The principal elevation could include more than one wall facing in the same direction – for example, where there are large bay windows on the front elevation, or where there is an ‘L’-shaped frontage. In such cases, all such walls will form the principal elevation and the line for determining what constitutes ‘extends beyond a wall’ will follow these walls” (page 15) .

The proposal therefore remains entirely to the rear of the principal elevation line and does not “extend beyond a wall forming the principal elevation” for the purposes of paragraph A.1(e)(i) of Class A.

Here is the image in the Technical Guidance

And an image I also found.... Which conflicts with your view.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Well it does get a it ambiguous, hence a photo/plan might help. Is the bit on the right a garage? IF so is it original? Your second diagram is form the Scottish guidance btw.

 

[lamby2244]

Well it does get a it ambiguous, hence a photo/plan might help. Is the bit on the right a garage? IF so is it original? Your second diagram is form the Scottish guidance btw.

Ah well the scottish version won’t help me! Thanks for helping. That other part of the building is the 5th bedroom and ensuite and a gararge. It is wholly original and the house was only built in 2017.

 

[stevie888]

When you were told you didn't qualify for PD was it he nature of your proposal or does your property NOT have PD rights?

If the former then I too think they are wrong. You are infilling a corner so there is an element of side extension here as well but that also appears to be comfortably within the criteria.

Why not just pop in an application for an LDC: you don't need as many drawings as for planning and you can do them yourself. Fees have recently altered but around £250.

If they fail you they have to specify chapter and verse and then you can argue properly and/or appeal if necessary.

I had one fail several years ago which the planner thought was fine (as obviously did I) but his boss had picked up a small technicality which I don't believe was ever the intention of t he original SI. He blustered when I insisted they specify exactly what they were objecting to, saying it was in the letter which merely parrotted the SI wording, but did eventually spell out the objection. I could see the logic but didn't agree.

When I mentioned appeal he properly lost the plot telling me we wouldn't have a chance, but if we did when they would immediately appeal to the High Court because it was a very important issue!!!

In the event the client decided that making one section of the loft conversion about 250 narrower was fine and that meant the issue went away.

 

[lamby2244]

They asked me if I wanted to withdraw it based on it being guaranteed to be refused. It was based on the principal elevation which is clearly incorrect. I wasted the fee so will be asking them to reconsider their position. Thanks for the response

 

[stevie888]

They asked me if I wanted to withdraw it based on it being guaranteed to be refused. It was based on the principal elevation which is clearly incorrect. I wasted the fee so will be asking them to reconsider their position. Thanks for the response

Have the given you a formal written response then?

 

[lamby2244]

Yes - and just for information the garage is original and attached to the house and has the 5th bedroom and en-suite above it.

Unfortunately, as the proposed side extension will extend to the garage wall, the extension would extend beyond what is considered the principal elevation of the dwelling house. Therefore, the proposal would fail to comply with Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A (e)(i) of the GDPO, which states that the development would not be permitted if the enlarged part of the dwelling house would extend beyond a wall that forms the principal elevation. As a result, the proposed side extension would require planning permission.

 

[Dereekoo]

Well if I was asked to draw a front elevation of your house it could be at the walls looking from the South or the walls looking from the West, either way your proposed extension would be behind the walls forming the principal elevation view as per comment 4. It certainly looks as if the council are taking a somewhat jaundiced view but how you overturn this??

 

[stevie888]

Refer them back to the first picture in post 4 which clearly shows multiple lines with the arrow pointed to the most forward one.

That's government clarification of the rules so LA can't ignore it. If they won't back down tell them you will be appealling

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

I agree that the "Council Line" is wrong. It shouldn't be a straight line, it should follow the frontage. Your interpretation is spot-on, the yellow area is beyond permitted development rights.

If the green box is your intended extension then it's definitely permitted development.

Even if the other direction was decided to be the front then it would still be PD.

It's a rear or side extension to anyone sensible's brain, definitely not beyond the front by any definition.

It looks like someone with more power-mania than knowledge has got completely the wrong end of the stick here.