We're in the middle of biying a new house, which we're planning to extend. I've submitted a pre-planning application to the council
and the local planning officer has come back with some advice. Much of it I agree with. Some I reluctantly accept. But there's one part where
I think she's got it wrong. Do any of you know how the rules are correctly applied?
The house as build has a kitchen that extends backwards by 0.5m more than the dining room. We want to knock the kitchen and dining room through into
one room. The Mrs wants to extend the dining room backwards by 0.5m to match the kitchen to give a square room when knocked through. The planning
officer said this is not Permitted Development as it extends off the side wall of the kitchen citing rule A.2 (b)
"development is not permitted by Class A if— (b) the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of
the original dwellinghouse"
Now if the house had a flat rear wall, we could extend by 3m backwards across the whole width. But because of the rule she cites, we can't fill
in the corner (3m x 0.5m). Is she right?
I always understood the elevation in this context to mean the closest wall to the boundary.
I think the planning officer has got it wrong.
Does your house fall into this category then ??
"This section of the rules sets out additional restrictions for National Parks, the
Broads, areas of outstanding natural beauty, conservation areas, and land within
World Heritage Sites"
If so then it does state that "extensions beyond any side wall are not permitted development in these
areas "
Section A.1 (h) defines a side elevation as ANY side wall.
I guess it could be that as it's a protected area the original design of that side wall was positioned to not obscure some view !!??!
I would just speak to them to see if some compromise can be reached, they may just be being awkward !!
See http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/100806_PDforhouseholders_TechnicalGuidance.pdf
quote:
Originally posted by andyace
Does your house fall into this category then ??
"This section of the rules sets out additional restrictions for National Parks, the Broads, areas of outstanding natural beauty, conservation areas, and land within World Heritage Sites" If so then it does state that "extensions beyond any side wall are not permitted development in these areas "
Section A.1 (h) defines a side elevation as ANY side wall.
quote:
Originally posted by SJ
I always understood the elevation in this context to mean the closest wall to the boundary.
I think the planning officer has got it wrong.
Assuming your getting pre application advice to put an application in anyway so does it matter?
If your not putting an application in then just put one in! your only talking a couple of hundred quid for an application so in comparison the build
costs its nothing!
quote:
Originally posted by loggyboy
Assuming your getting pre application advice to put an application in anyway so does it matter?
If your not putting an application in then just put one in! your only talking a couple of hundred quid for an application so in comparison the build costs its nothing!
tell me if I'm out of order but with that amount of work planned have you considered moving to a larger property?
quote:
Originally posted by Jon Ison
tell me if I'm out of order but with that amount of work planned have you considered moving to a larger property?
Is the blue part an original wall or part of a subsequent modification? I ask as I believe that many of the rules apply to the original house.
Regardless of if any developments had planning permission
My house used to be an outbuilding for a farmhouse that is listed, mine was converted into a house about 20 years ago (badly by farmers!!!)
but because it originally was in the same development of a listed building, it means my house is listed
We recently swapped our windows - hardwood for hardwood, but slightly changed (improved) the design, no overall size changes just a fewer number of
larger panes. The original cheap windows were put in by the farmers, they didn't match the original plans. However I had to get planning
permission and listed building consent, provide maps, a "historical impact statement,"design and access statements" and a load of other
crap
3 years earlier, I phoned the council saying that I wanted to build a conservatory, I sent them outline plans, they came back to me saying no
permissions required - go figure!!
quote:
Originally posted by Toys2
Is the blue part an original wall or part of a subsequent modification? I ask as I believe that many of the rules apply to the original house. Regardless of if any developments had planning permission.
My experience has shown that a number of developers forgo PD on houses in order to get away with building them. My advice would be to check the details and tread carefully. There are lots of reasons why bigger houses cost more!
quote:
Originally posted by smart51
quote:
Originally posted by Toys2
Is the blue part an original wall or part of a subsequent modification? I ask as I believe that many of the rules apply to the original house. Regardless of if any developments had planning permission.
The blue part is original. The green has been accepted as permitted development. The red is the disputed part.
Just be careful whatever you do, nearly got badly caught out on permitted development.
There's a straightforward and simple 'proper' way to resolve the issue:
1) Sack whoever is handling your planning application at the moment.
2) Engage someone who actually knows their arse from their elbow.
3) Apply for a 'Certificate of Lawful Development' (this essentially forces the Planning Department to take a formal judgement
on whether the work constitutes Permitted Development). If granted, it covers your ass for the future, including the legals if and when you come to
sell the property.
4) If the LDC is refused, appeal it. The Appeals Inspectorate very seldom makes mistakes in interpretation of Planning Law, so if your Planning
Officer's decision is incorrect, it WILL be overturned.
If you're sure of your ground, it's not a bad idea to politely mention to the Planning Officer when you submit the application for the LDC
that you WILL be taking it to appeal if you don't get the answer you think is correct; it focuses their mind on the potential paperwork, costs to
the council and embarrassment to themselves if they don't think about it properly.
Costs of pursuing an LDC are not dissimilar to just going for Planning Permission, so if you're at all unsure of whether the work constitutes PD
(or some elements of it do, and some don't), then replace item 3) with 'apply for Planning Permission', and have done with it. They
can't refuse Planning Permissions for no good reason.
quote:
Originally posted by Sam_68
3) Apply for a 'Certificate of Lawful Development' (this essentially forces the Planning Department to take a formal judgement on whether the work constitutes Permitted Development). If granted, it covers your ass for the future, including the legals if and when you come to sell the property.
One further bit of advice:
If you're going forward with the possibility/likeihood of an appeal at the end of it, you'd be well advised to engage a competent
specialist; the usual 'plans drawers' of the sort who advertise their services in the local papers are not likely to be able to hack it.
Planning law and appeal procedure is complex, so some young lad drawing up plans on the side for a bit of extra beer money, or a semi-retired
architect/draftsman doing odd jobs to keep his hand in may not be good enough.
You may ultimately need someone who is familiar with both local and national Planning policy and the Appeals procedure, and it helps if they've
been involved from the outset.
... but at the very least, ensure that you do absolutely everything strictly by the book, and document every single item of
correspondence/e-mail/phone call as and when it happens (with phone calls or face-to-face meetings, e-mail back a confirmation of all key items
agreed/discussed, so they cannot later be easily disputed or denied).