Rear Extension to sidewall of existing rear extension.

Can someone help me understand this point, a prior approval has not been considered permitted development because its width would be more than half the width of the original house even though the width of the extension is not, only when they combine it with the width of the existing original extension... They use the term combined to infer that if you extend off a side wall of the orignal extension then it becomes part of your proposed extension? Legislation states
Class A, Schedule 2, Part of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015.
(j)the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse, and would—
(i)exceed 4 metres in height,
(ii)have more than a single storey, or
(iii)have a width greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse

It doesnt mention anything about 'combined' but the report states this:-

8. Permitted Development 8.1 Whilst the above amenity assessment has identified that there would be no amenity harm as a reason of the proposal, it should be noted that the proposal would not be lawful under Class A, Schedule 2, Part of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015.

This is because it is noted from the proposed drawings and available aerial photos, that the proposed extension would be joined with an original rear extension and when combined, the two structures would have a width greater than half the width of the original house and the combined depth would be more than that stated in this prior approval application.

8.2 Class A at paragraph (i) states – If the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse, and would – (i) exceed 4 metres in height, (ii) have more than a single storey, or (iii) have a width greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse Then this would not be permitted development.

8.3 As highlighted above the proposal is not permitted by Class A for the following reasons – i. The enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would have a single storey and when joined up with existing structures, it would extend beyond the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse by more than the depth stated in this application. ii. The enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse and would have a width greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse.

8.4 Therefore, the scheme does not comply with the requirements, limitations and conditions of householder prior approval for permitted development under Class A, Schedule 2, Part 1, of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended).

 

Your LPA is correct.

If the existing (original?) extension is less than one-half the width of the house, no extension built against its side wall can be permitted development (even if the side wall is demolished) if the extended part is more than ½ the width of the house.

 

But the extension being built is half or slightly less..
Also where can find how enlargements relates to original extension in the legislation?

 

Sorry, I misunderstood.
If your new build is less than half the width of the house, it is PD (assuming the other criteria are met).

(If the original extension was built with the house, the LPA cannot regard the original + proposed as one big extension - they can only take into account what you propose to build.
If the existing extension was itself a later addition - they can regard the whole as one (new) extension).

 

I'm confused. Are they saying the side wall of the previous rear extension is a "side elevation" of the original dwelling? That doesn't sound right to me. Unless the previous extension was already added to an original "side elevation".

It always annoys me when you see rear extensions classified as side extensions. What is the bloody point?

 

I think the problem is that the wording was originally intended to prevent large side extensions - which would be visible from the street - from being built.
But in latter years, LPAs have cottoned on to the words 'side-facing elevation' and applied them to even small rear extensions, which is technically within the rules. In practice, it means that many houses can not now have practical rear extensions without P.P., whereas under the old volume limits, they could.

 

Im pretty sure its original built with the house, there is no history of the existing extension being built. The officer even uses the word original "that the proposed extension would be joined with an original rear extension and when combined" im just not sure it seems to be treated as an extension added to a previously added extension.

 

PD relates to the original house. If the house has been previously extended, i.e. post 1948 then any future PD extension would need to take into the existing extension.

Are you saying you’re disagreeing with the LPA’s view as to what is original and what is an extension? Do you have any drawings/photos?

 

No not anymore there is an additional extension its more to do with if the extensions join or not.
Im just doing research because I am trying to learn and going through cases that have been recently declined, and I cant work out why this one is declined I want to know. The case is 20/03085/CEA on https://new.enfield.gov.uk/services/planning/the-planning-register/ The officer is saying the new extension joins the previous extension but it does not join according to the gov guidance https://assets.publishing.service.g...e/830643/190910_Tech_Guide_for_publishing.pdf see example on page 27 and 28 the proposal is the example shown on page 28 but the officer seems to be claiming its the example given on page 27. As the the guidance states If the rear extension B is added at a later date, it has no effect on the width of the side extension (as it does not join it). The example given in that guidance is identical accept you would switch A for B.

 

Isn’t the part arrowed a previous extension, like the Planning Officer’s report states?

 

And isn’t this the ‘original’ rear wall?

 

Right I thought the existing extension was the toilet area part starting from under the bay window. If the entire 2 story from that wall you highlighted is an extension then yes it will clearly be joined. But just for educational purposes if the current extension was from the bay window the toilet part. And you added an infill extension as they proposed would that be PD?

Also if theres no planning history to determine if the extension is original how is the decision made?

 

I don’t know. I’d have to see the plans.

As for the Planning history, just because there isn’t anything online doesn’t mean there isn’t any history. Planning will have records and resources and it’s not that difficult to ascertain what’s original.

 

I would say the yellow outline is the original house. It looks like an original 2 storey outrigger at the back NOT an extension. From DevilDamo's aerial photo there are houses nearby with the exact same outrigger which look contemporary with the style of the house. The blue is the previous extension and red the proposed new extension.

So as long as the proposed extension is no more than half the width of the house then I would say it is PD.

 

What a bizarre place to put a bathroom...imagine that’s going to be a mare when it comes to drainage