Reasons for not being permitted development

[jakehake]

Hi,

Quick question as I've been puzzled by a call received from the local Planning Officer today. We were expecting to get the rubber stamp today for a Certificate of Lawfulness on some planned work to the rear of our property(roof amendments/dormer over existing ground floor extension to create extra space on second storey).

Pre-application advice went fine and came back as permitted so we submitted the proper application. The website was showing the recommendation from Officer as lawful, then today I guess he went to his boss for sign off and he/she rejected it. No idea why yet but from the message it seems they want full plans to consider. The only bit I caught was 1) if they granted ours then our neighbours could all do similar (erm...so?) and 2) about overlooking(is overlooking part of PD rules?).

From my own guesswork it could be an issue with eaves height(would eaves = dormer roof rather than main roof in this case) but this has never been mentioned or raised. In terms of overlooking in my eyes we are moving the rear windows further away than they currently are reducing what can be seen(we have no neighbours to the rear, only to the sides). Can anyone shed any light on what potential hiccup they have found? Will obviously be calling in the morning but I just can't fathom how it got this far without anything being raised so far

The plans are on the following link (sorry tried to copy just the relevant cross sections to a jpg but didn't come out clear)

https://revenues.christchurch.gov.u...G AND PROPOSED FLOOR PLANS AND ELEVATIONS.PDF

Thanks to anyone who maybe can enlighten me a bit before I speak with the Officer

 

[tony1851]

It's effectively a two-storey extension. If either side of it is within 2m of a boundary, the eaves should not be > 3m above ground level.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

In addition to Tony's reason above (which is not clear if it complies or not from the submitted application), it would appear to fall outside of the Permitted Development criteria for the following reasons also:

*Roof pitch of extensions higher than one storey to match existing house.

*Upper-floor, side-facing windows to be obscure-glazed; any opening to be 1.7m above the floor.

In anycase as I just touched upon, the application does not state why the application is to be considered Permitted Development ie there is nothing on the form, a covering letter or any notes or dimensions on the drawings to that effect. It is crucial to justify why the app is PD or the planners have no choice but to reject it. How do they know how far it sticks out, how do they know the rooflight is to be obscured glazed, how do they know the height is below 3m if within 2m of the boundary. It may be obvious to you but it is not to me, Tony or the planners.

Unfortunately many planning officers are a bit crap at their jobs but then IMO the proposals are not permitted anyway so the boss has made the right call.

 

[wessex101]

Been a lurking for a while but this was such an interesting question I thought I'd pitch in.

Would this not be a roof extension/dormer? So as long as it is below 50 cu. metres it is permitted development. This is an area of planning that I have always thought was a potential loophole to add height and space but I have never actually had to put it to the test.

What does everyone else think?

 

[rjm2k]

I think the fact that it's described as a "TWO STOREY EXTENSION" on the plans is probably a bad starting point as far as PD goes! Goes to show what a waste of time Pre application advice is, but it's another box you are expected to tick on your application to show willing..