Side Return Extension - Permitted Development

[Gillesa]

I have been planning to build a small side return extension to my Victorian terraced house for a while now, and I have submitted an application for a Certificate of Lawful Development (I have attached the proposed plans).

This has just been refused on the grounds that it is a side extension, which is not permitted as we are in a conservation area.

The layout we have is a two storey mid terrace with a bathroom on the ground floor at the back. We just wanted to fill in the patio area with a single storey extension.

I was under the impression that this would be a rear extension, and as long as it is no longer than 3m in length, then it would be permitted. Does this in fact count as a side extension, or do we have grounds to appeal?

Cheers.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

With respect to Permitted Development an extension can be both a rear and a side extension as it adjoins both a ‘rear wall’ and a ‘side wall’ so would need to adhere to the relevant criteria for each scenario. As such your proposal is indeed a side extension (as well as a rear extension) and so would need planning permission. The council are right. You won’t get anywhere on appeal. If you paid someone to put your proposal together and submit as such it then you should ask for a refund. But that’s not to say you wouldn’t get planning permission approved for it.

I would question whether an 1800 wide extension is very usable anyway and also (unless you employ a structural engineer to prove otherwise, Building Control will insist on a side return of 665mm being will required in that bottom right hand corner so your double doors will actually only end up with an opening of 1135mm. Though you could get that external wall thickness down to about 215mm if you avoid the traditional cavity wall.

 

[^woody^]

It is a side extension according to the PD guidelines. It would be a rear extension in other circumstances.

What you could have done is either

• shown the existing rear annex as a separate outbuilding (it may even have been, when built) - difficult if the neighbours have the same
  
• shown that the existing rear annex was to be demolished and rebuilt as a single extension across the back of the house

Any 45° rule may prevent this being approved for full planning permission if applied for, due to a kitchen window of the house on the right.

 

[Gillesa]

Thanks for the replies, guys. I did actually pay for the pre-planning advice service beforehand, and I was advised that it satisfied the criteria for PD.

Is it possible to argue that the bathroom is itself an extension to the original dwelling so that the new extension is entirely to the rear of the original house? Can an existing extension prevent future extensions from being built because it has created another side wall? It seems a bit absurd that we could demolish the bathroom and rebuild it all in one go and it would then comply.

The 'no side extensions' rule is probably to avoid changes to the appearance of the house from the front, but it is a terraced house so this wouldn't be the case. It's a shame common sense cannot be used here.

I drew the plans myself so unfortunately I can't get a refund on my own time!

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Are you saying the council said it would be PD in their Pre-App advice to you?

 

[Gillesa]

Well, it's a bit of an awkward one where I expect they could wriggle out of it. The pre-planning advice was to find out if we would get planning permission on a 3300mm extension, and their conclusion was that it would probably be overbearing on the neighbours, as Woody says.

This was followed up with an email conversation with the planning officer, where I asked if it would be PD if we shortened it to 3000mm. She then said that she could confirm that it would be PD under the following criteria:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Permitted Development Order 2015

(f) subject to paragraph (g), the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would have a single storey and—


(i) extend beyond the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse by more than 4 metres in the case of a detached dwellinghouse, or 3 metres in the case of any other dwellinghouse, or


(ii) exceed 4 metres in height;


(i) the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would be within 2 metres of the boundary of the curtilage of the dwellinghouse, and the height of the eaves of the enlarged part would exceed 3 metres;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Arguably she could say that technically this is correct, and she just neglected to tell me that it is a side extension when I asked if anything else would prevent it from being PD.

 

[garyo]

Was the extra bathroom added at a later date than the original build? If so do you know when ? If its a later addition then it may be considered as part of the 'enlarged part' and therefore not constitute a side extension.