Prior Approval

[Nakajo]

In light of the Hilton judgment and the subsequent clarifying amendment to the GPDO (so ignoring the presently incorrect technical guidance), my understanding is that the attached is Permitted Development (subject to Prior Approval Notification).

Why?

Because the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would have a single storey and would not extend beyond the original dwellinghouse by more than 8m.

It seems to me that this is the same test as applied to the Hilton case (although in that instance, the existing double-height extension was full width):

http://pa.bexley.gov.uk/online-appl...tails.do?activeTab=dates&keyVal=NN7CIPBE06400

In the Hilton case, the appellant proposed a further, full-width, single-storey extension to an existing full-width, part single- and part two-storey extension.

Agree?

Existing:

Proposed:

 

[wessex101]

I haven't checked so off the top of my head (so probably wrong) post Hilton we are back to where we were, I thought if you propose an extension that joins to an existing extension they can take the proposed and existing extensions as one unit and would therefore be outside PD.

Even if they accept the existing extension as part of the "original" house the proposed extension becomes a wrap around side/rear extension so outside the scope of the larger home extension scheme.

Having said that I have seen examples with one of my local Councils where they have approved wrap around side/rear extensions under this scheme so probably worth putting in the application anyway.

 

[Nakajo]

With regards to the wraparound argument, the net result is the same as building out the first 3.5m under 'normal' PD. Completing that. Waiting a respectable amout of time, and then submitting a Prior Approval Notification for the remaining 2m. However, because the PD part would be completed without any notification, the LPA would have no knowledge that it wasn't there to begin with!

 

[wessex101]

I agree, but rather a long drawn out process. I cannot imagine many clients would be prepared to undertake such a convoluted project.

Personally I would advise the client that it appears not to be PD (obviously I would do more research first) but worth banging in larger home extension/prior approval application on the off chance that the planners are having an off day (and be rather careful what I showed on the application, not deliberately misleading just economical with the facts)

 

[Nakajo]

My recollection is that PA requires 'a plan' - and that the LPA have no provision to request additional information unless their is neighbour objection - which I think highly unlikely in this context.

 

[wessex101]

Whilst the larger home extension scheme only requires a very basic plan the one thing you want to avoid is a neighbour objection so why wouldn't you produce a plan that shows the scheme in it's best light to show to the neighbour before you submit the application to make sure they are on side? Lack of detail and communication is probably far more likely to receive an objection.

Having said that this project looks well screened from the neighbours but I would still produce a drawing, probably not to full planning application standard but certainly so the neighbour could understand what was proposed and get the client to go and see the neighbours and butter them up.

Where are all the usual suspects? their planning knowledge is far better than mine. Are they Corbynista's nursing a massive hangover after all the celebrations or maybe devastated Tories crying into their cornflakes?

 

[geraldthehamster]

Isn't that a 5m deep extension with two storeys? I.e., not PD

 

[LukeB123]

I think I am in the same boat as Gerald / Wessex - although I have not really checked the new legislation thoroughly, but would like to hear some clarification.

I assume that he wrap around extension shouldn't be an argument because it's not extending off an original side wall, just the original rear wall? However, the height of the non original extension would mean that you couldn't gain Prior Approval?

 

[Nakajo]

Gerald and Wessex are in different boats. As is the way of things in the internet, I realise now, that I really only asked in order to confirm my prejudice. So, I'm just going to proceed on the basis of my existing understanding.

 

[wessex101]

I think me and my little ship mates are all in the same boat, it aint PD, not even under prior approval larger extension rules. To paraphrase the revised GDO, the total enlargement is taken as the new extension with the existing enlargement, so it is a 2 storey extension deeper than 3 metres etc. (you made me sit down and read small extracts from the my bloody GDO so now I am an expert!)

 

[Nakajo]

If that were true, then the Bexley scheme wouldn't be PD+, but the High Court has confirmed that it is. My understanding it that the subsequent amendment to the GPDO supports the position of the High Court.

 

[wessex101]

I took the exact opposite conclusion, I thought the revised GDO was specifically brought out to close the Hilton loophole.

I can't keep up with this Planning malarkey, it's worse than politics.

There were a few regulars who were more up to speed on the Hilton case and subsequent fall out so hopefully they will be along soon to put me out of my misery.

 

[Nakajo]

Well, we agree on one thing; it's immensely confusing.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

I understood the loophole was closed, see paragraph 7.3 in napoleons last post here: https://www.diynot.com/diy/threads/permitted-development-rights-class-a.461957/page-3

 

[garyo]

Me too. My existing extension would benefit with it still being open so I'm very interested in this thread. I tried to understand the judgement previously posted on another thread and couldn't make sense of it.