Side elevation or not

[Mekak]

So just had an LDC refused as development not allowed under Class A, Part 1, Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) 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

Application was for an almost full width single storey rear extension - less than 3m deep, planning department are saying that the small part of the rear wall that steps out forms a side elevation.

Seems to be some contention about what constitutes a side elevation from looking online - would you all agree this should have been refused? I realise your opinions won't change the decision but I can't for the life of me think why somebody would look at the rules and interpret them this way in this case.

Not annoyed, just trying to understand why that small 300mm would make any difference to anything - would mean that every house in the surrounding area would not be able to use PD rights for rear extensions, the mind boggles!

 

[^woody^]

as development not allowed under Class A

Application was for an almost full width single storey rear extension

Are you clear what an LDC is and what it is used for?

It is for confirming that something is lawful, so your reference to "being allowed" and "applying for a full width extension" is confusing.

Design it to meet the PD guidelines, or apply for full planning permission.

 

[Mekak]

My understanding is that the LDC would confirm that the proposed extension is "allowed" and covered by permitted development, meaning planning permission is not required?

My intention was to get the LDC, get some building control plans done, go through building control as needed and not worry about a planning department getting involved 10 years down the line and creating problems.

The point of the post was to ask whether people thought the step out constituted a side elevation, nothing more!

 

[wessex101]

I know it sounds bonkers but technically the planners are right. It is a lottery in that situation, I've seen plenty that the planners let through and some that get pulled up.

Having said that, bite the bullet, pay your £206 for a planning application and from you brief description and tiny plan I would fully expect an approval. You might as well make the extension slightly larger while you're at it.

 

[RichA]

FYI. We had a central bay window in our house; and managed to get an LDC. This was the text we used to accompany the application:

There is a bay window on the rear elevation serving the kitchen area. It is 2.4 metres wide and just 50cm in depth. This feature is part of the original dwellinghouse but does not constitute ‘a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse’. As can be seen from the drawing extract above showing the existing rear elevation, and the photograph below, this bay window is an architectural feature of the rear wall.

Page 23 of the Government’s Technical Guidance states “A wall forming a side elevation of a house will be any wall that cannot be identified as being a front wall or a rear wall. Houses will often have more than two side elevation walls”. The example diagram in the Technical Guidance that follows this advice shows a dwelling with a very distinct staggered footprint. The existing bay window is very different to this.

Having regard to the advice on page 23 of the Technical Guidance, the bay window is clearly identifiable as part of the rear wall forming the rear elevation of the dwellinghouse. It is therefore not “a wall forming a side elevation of a house”. The bay window feature has a shallow depth and represents an architectural feature of the rear wall. It forms an integral part of the rear elevation of the original dwelling, providing articulation to this part of the dwelling.

 

[tony1851]

Wessex is correct; any original rear projection prevents any rear extension greater than one-half the width of the house. There was a poster on here about a year ago who had an original 1m coal bunker on the back, which prevented a full-width extension.
The legislation was clearly intended to prevent overly-wide side extensions beyond the gabe wall, but many councils have twigged this one and are using it to rake in additional application fees.

 

[^woody^]

The point of the post was to ask whether people thought the step out constituted a side elevation, nothing more!

Consider any information received that was not what you intended a bonus, as you clearly don't understand the planning process.

 

[tony1851]

Looking at the OP's pic again, the projecting bit only seems to be about 200-250mm? There are a number of appeal cases which deal with short return walls and the question of whether they project sufficiently to constitute "a wall forming a side elevation".
There are two cases which deal with a wall projecting 300mm through two stories; one says that it IS a wall forming a side elevation, while the other says it isn't as it is too narrow.
Clearly it's a moot point, but in this particular case, it would probably be arguable on appeal. However, why wait 6 months for an appeal, when a 3m extension would probably get p.p. anyway?

 

[RebLou]

Hi, did you get any further with this as we are in the same boat.

Thanks.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

The step is a side elevation therefore:

Design it to meet the PD guidelines, or apply for full planning permission.

 

[RebLou]

Thanks.