Will I be allowed to build rear extension like this?

[noidea321]

No

Planning law and property law are distinct, and having planning permission to build over land, does not give permission for the thing to be built under any other restrictive law or regulations.

Right, however isn't the area I want to build on, within the red boundary lines as per Title Plan?

 

[^woody^]

Is it? I don't know.

What you need to do is clarify if you are building over land to which others have access rights, and then determine how that impacts your plans.

 

[wessex101]

So, the Title Register says this (referencing the Title Plan I attached above);

The land tinted pink on the filed plan has the benefit of rights of drainage through the drains and sewers lying under adjoining land leading into the main sewer and a right of way over the part of the side passageway not included in the title.

I don't know if that changes anything

So looking at the title plan there is a definite offset in the side boundary and right of way. The boundary is angled towards the neighbours garage (subject property did not have a garage at the time) so it seems the proposed extension will not encroach on the right of way.

That makes sense, the right of way is to provide vehicle access to the rear. I don't see why the neighbour would need access to the sliver of land in front of OP's garage. The proposed extension will not impede the neighbour's access to their garage in any way.

On a side point. How will the planners feel about the OP losing a parking space? As they will not be able to access their own garage. Some local planning policies are very protective of existing parking provision if on street parking is an issue. Check the policy hasn't changed since planning permission was granted 5 years ago. The architectural drawing provided seems to show access to the garage will be maintained but the aerial photo seems to show the extension will encroach at least half way across the garage?

 

[noidea321]

On a side note, going through the council's planning portal, it seems as though number 34 on the screenshot attached was refused permission: "The Local Planning Authority considers that the impact of the proposed development on the amenities of the adjoining residents at 36, would be unacceptable as it would cause demonstrable harm in terms of overshadowing, adverse outlook and increased sense of enclosure to the amenities of the above occupants. Prior approval is required and the application is refused because of the above stated reason."

I looked at their submitted plans, and it would've been as deep as the extension in number 36 already in place! And number 36's plans and building was already done years before number 34 had theirs refused.

For me as a non-expert it seems as though the council are quite inconsistent in accepting and refusing!

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

You need to check what the guidance was that was in place when that application was approved. In anycase precedent doesn't really exist nowadays in planning (especially for domestic extensions) just because something was approved previously does not mean the council are bound to approve the same thing again.

Furthermore, depending on the Local Authority, sometimes the guidance regarding domestic extensions is woefully lacking, this can be both an advantage and a disadvantage and can leave the decision to approve or not down to the planners discretion rather than any criteria written in the guidance. Sometimes planning sucks.

 

[stevie888]

Sometimes planning sucks.

"Sometimes" suggests sometimes it doesn't!!

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Of course, you win some you lose some.

 

[stevie888]

Even getting permission strikes me as a loss when you've shelled out over £500 for the priviledge.