Side return Extension 4.5 metres - PD v Planning

[Darko]

I am doing a side return extension AND a rear extension in a terraced victorian. The rear extension would be PD and I have submitted a seperate Lawful Development Certificate application for it.

The side return (as its above 3 metres - it is planned to be 4.5 metres) requires neighbour consent for PD (via the Prior Notification process). The neighbours are not being clear if they will reject it under PD. Otherwise all PD requirements are met (e.g. same materials etc.)

The question is should/can I do a Prior Notification and a full planning application at the same time to maximize my chances of approval? What if one gets rejected and the other accepted - which one would take precedence etc.? The architect is hesitant to do a pre-planning app.

 

[Darko]

Noone knows?

 

[LukeB123]

I am not 100% sure what a side 'return' extension is, and the question isn't massively clear. A Pic maybe would help but you explained it O.K in words.

You can do a full application and a Prior Notification application.

What if one gets rejected and the other accepted - which one would take precedence etc.?

I think you mean you are going to submit a full app and a prior notification for exactly the same side extension? If that's the case you may as well just submit the Prior Notification Application. If the neighbours object the planning officer will then look at it (like they would do in the other "full app" scenario) and can still grant approval, or decide to refuse - the same outcome as you would get from the Prior Notification.

If the neighbours don't object you're fine.

 

[Darko]

Thanks. By a side return extension, its a terraced Victorian house and I want to infill the rear (i.e. next to the L shaped kitchen). I've already put in a prior notification for 6 m (though I'm happy with 4.5 metres) - just thinking that if the neighbours reject, I submit another 4.5 metre prior notification app or do a full planning.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Bit confusing, you can only use the Prior Notification for pure rear extensions.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

An existing and proposed plan would hep greatly .......

 

[Darko]

Hi - both the brown bricked bits are "proposed" - the white bit is the original building.

 

[Darko]

The above is what we would like to achieve (4.5 metre infill and a longer rear of 7.5 metres - the "pure rear" would be OK as it would only be a 3 m. addition to the back of the original "rear" and so it is really the 1.5 m extra infill - i.e. over 3 metres - bit that needs neighbour consent). This hasn't been submitted yet until we get a rejection on the below:

CURRENT STATUS: CURRENTLY, for the existing Prior Notification APP we have submitted, we asked for 6 metres (so that if the neighbours object, we can tell them, look we're doing 4.5, will you accept now?) Hence, I am also attaching the proposal what the architect currently submitted for prior notification (for a six metre side joining up into the existing building). I think this would be rejected as the original building ends at 4.5 metres (it doesn't appear that way on the site plan because there is a "toilet" attached to the 4.5 metres original house which is a little more than 2 metres) and the side would be 6 metres and attach to this "toilet" - therefore it looks like a wraparound (i.e. what is currently proposed)? Is it thus bound to get rejected even if the neighbour consent?

 

[LukeB123]

You can't do the image on the "Current Wrap" drawing under prior notification it is too wide you - so yes it will definitely be "rejected" just because it does not meet permitted development rules.

You would have to submit a full application in order to get a wrap around.

I can't see too much wrong with the "SIDEEX" drawing as you have a really strong fallback position.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

No still don't get it.

 

[Darko]

Hi - will CURRENT WRAP be rejected even if it joins into the existing toilet construction - although it will change the doors and perspective etc?

 

[LukeB123]

"CURRENTWRAP" will be "rejected" under a prior notification application because it is too wide. The width (measured at the widest point) of side and rear extension cannot be any wider than 50% of the width of the house. CURRENT WRAP is too wide.

SIDEEX is okay because it is two separate extensions.

Hi - will CURRENT WRAP be rejected even if it joins into the existing toilet construction - although it will change the doors and perspective etc?

I have no idea where the toilet is, but CURRENT WRAP is too wide to go through a prior notification application

 

[Darko]

so even though the app is with the council, it'll get rejected later (i.e. in a few weeks rather than at the beginning - its already been 4 weeks!)

 

[LukeB123]

Yes, unless the council miss it somehow, or they interpret the legislation differently.

You (or your agent) have put an application in for the council to consider, they are considering it. I think the councils usually get up to 6 weeks for these type o applications to make a decision. I think some councils would point this out to you before registering the application - or they might not even check it and just register the application regardless - there certainly isn't a requirement for them to vet the application before registering it.

CURRENTWRAP (makes it easier looking at the 3d view in the corner) doesn't meet the criteria, and therefore should be refused.

(This all refers to an application made under the Prior Notification Process)

 

[Nakajo]

LukeB123 Can you remind me how the 50% rule operates? The proposal shown is PD (under Class A Prior Approval rules) according to my interpretation.

Dawood Ahmed, what is currently with the LPA?