0Hello,
I made a post over a year ago about a failed PD request that was denied by the council. In summary, I live in a semi-detached house. My house has a flat rear wall but for a small square 'boiler room' (approx 1m x 1m) bolted on to the right hand side of the rear wall.
I wanted to do a rear extension across the full width of the house, but it was been declined on the basis that "the proposed extension would extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwelling house [the 1m wall of the outside toilet] and would have greater width of the original dwellinghouse, in conflict with paragraph (j)(iii)."
Full details for those that are interested here: https://www.diynot.com/diy/threads/...opment-rules-by-council.462562/#ixzz4qzHTO1v9
To summarised the above, I was advised:
(a) The decision was not unusual, probably technically correct, but that councils vary about how strict they are with small 'stick-out' bits on rear walls.
(b) That I should have not shown the 'boiler room' on the plan and probably everyone would have been happy.
(c) That my architect who was acting as our agent was an idiot - linked to (a)+(b), but since confirmed by myself due to other signs of incompetence during our loft conversion. We've since parted ways.
Back last year, it seemed like I had three options:
(1) Resubmit, not showing the boiler room and hope the Council don't check the previous application. Unlikely. Although since other houses on the street have no sign of the boiler room, I wonder whether I could argue the boiler room wasn't original. I've got no way of knowing for sure.
(2) Submit a regular planning application, but be limited for 3m full-width extension, but perhaps with a longer, narrower bit as well.
(3) Benefit from the judgement given in Hilton, which by my understanding at the time suggested that PD was considered based on how the house currently was; not what it was in 19XX. Meaning I could have knocked down the boiler room, submitted an application, if it was denied, appeal citing Hilton, and eventually get approval under Permitted Development. More info: https://planninglawblog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/
At the time Hilton, for my purposes sounded great. It seems now, the GPDO has been ammended due to the Hilton decision, but I'm afraid I'm not well versed enough in planning to understand what, in any, implication it has on the work I want to do?
Martin Goodall has a summary here:
https://planninglawblog.blogspot.co.uk/2017/04/latest-changes-to-gpdo.html
It seems that any extension under PD is now considered along with any existing enlargement. But what about an "existing reduction" - which is what I would have if I knocked down my boiler room.
Very grateful for any advice - Hilton orientated or otherwise!
Thanks!
I made a post over a year ago about a failed PD request that was denied by the council. In summary, I live in a semi-detached house. My house has a flat rear wall but for a small square 'boiler room' (approx 1m x 1m) bolted on to the right hand side of the rear wall.
I wanted to do a rear extension across the full width of the house, but it was been declined on the basis that "the proposed extension would extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwelling house [the 1m wall of the outside toilet] and would have greater width of the original dwellinghouse, in conflict with paragraph (j)(iii)."
Full details for those that are interested here: https://www.diynot.com/diy/threads/...opment-rules-by-council.462562/#ixzz4qzHTO1v9
To summarised the above, I was advised:
(a) The decision was not unusual, probably technically correct, but that councils vary about how strict they are with small 'stick-out' bits on rear walls.
(b) That I should have not shown the 'boiler room' on the plan and probably everyone would have been happy.
(c) That my architect who was acting as our agent was an idiot - linked to (a)+(b), but since confirmed by myself due to other signs of incompetence during our loft conversion. We've since parted ways.
Back last year, it seemed like I had three options:
(1) Resubmit, not showing the boiler room and hope the Council don't check the previous application. Unlikely. Although since other houses on the street have no sign of the boiler room, I wonder whether I could argue the boiler room wasn't original. I've got no way of knowing for sure.
(2) Submit a regular planning application, but be limited for 3m full-width extension, but perhaps with a longer, narrower bit as well.
(3) Benefit from the judgement given in Hilton, which by my understanding at the time suggested that PD was considered based on how the house currently was; not what it was in 19XX. Meaning I could have knocked down the boiler room, submitted an application, if it was denied, appeal citing Hilton, and eventually get approval under Permitted Development. More info: https://planninglawblog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/
At the time Hilton, for my purposes sounded great. It seems now, the GPDO has been ammended due to the Hilton decision, but I'm afraid I'm not well versed enough in planning to understand what, in any, implication it has on the work I want to do?
Martin Goodall has a summary here:
https://planninglawblog.blogspot.co.uk/2017/04/latest-changes-to-gpdo.html
It seems that any extension under PD is now considered along with any existing enlargement. But what about an "existing reduction" - which is what I would have if I knocked down my boiler room.
Very grateful for any advice - Hilton orientated or otherwise!
Thanks!
