BigBub

Look in to the Principle of Consistency: https://www.tpexpert.org/plannings-ultimate-curse/ "The principle is not that like cases must be determined alike, but a decision-taker ought, when considering a materially similar proposal, to have regard to the principle of consistency, to have good reason if deciding to depart from the previous decision, and to give reasons for any such departure." It doesn't necessarily mean you would be successful with an appeal but it would put the onus on the council to justify why they changed their view on the extension being overbearing/overshadowing.

Other than outline permission, you could also consider the Permission in Principle (PIP) route as this only requires an application form, site location plan and fee.

I would take it to appeal if I was you. Certificates of Lawful Development for existing development are made under Section 191 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 which defines lawful development as development against which no enforcement action may be taken and where no enforcement notice is in force, or, for which planning permission is not required . (refer to https://www.gov.uk/guidance/lawful-development-certificates#definition-of-lawfulness-and-its-limits) It might depend on how you made your CLD application though with the wording you used and the land you outlined in red compared with your application.

Your council will have a Statement of Community Involvement somewhere on their webpages. This document usually sets out the policy for the minimum number of objections that will bring an application to committee. Otherwise it could be that someone has asked a local Councillor to call the application in for committee.

Is the annexe being built under Permitted Development or Planning Permission?

When a council can no longer demonstrate a five-year housing supply, the tilted balance is engaged. This usually leads to more housing applications for the council which may not accord with every policy in their local plan but more weight may be given to them in meeting the housing need on balance. https://www.savills.co.uk/blog/article/312988/residential-property/in-plain-english--the-tilted-balance.aspx

Given that you have agreed to the extension of time to the deadline you also won't have the benefit of getting your fee refunded for the extra delay...

It would likely be much cheaper to use your local authority's pre-app service compared to the £1,000 appraisal

The civil service code applies to Civil Servants. Only those who work for central government are considered civil servants. Councillors fall within local government

Each LPA will normally set out their own Code of Practice or Guidance Protocol for Members on a specific committee.

From experience, most LPAs will ask for a 2 or 3 week EoT. Unless you have provided amended particulars that the case officer has advised are necessary to avoid refusal, it is rarely in the interest of the applicant. When you agree to an EoT the LPA do not have to record the application as being decided late, even if they miss the 8 weeks deadline. One main reason you might not want to agree is that you will lose out on the Planning Guarantee which entitles you to a refund of the application fee when a minor application takes longer than 16 weeks to be issued a decision. I've noticed more and more LPAs charging additional fees for applications which are not valid on submission, for example if a drawing was missing a scale bar they would request that it is amended and also that a £60 invalid fee is paid. If they can charge for their time to validate an application, I am thinking to start requesting a fee from the LPA to agree an EoT. I know they will almost always refuse but it would be more to make a point that it's not just their time that is valuable.

@Alan Ambrose The The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) defines what a valid application is under Article 34, Part 6 which also mentions that a valid application is taken to have been received when the application, and such of the documents, particulars or evidence referred to above as are required to be included in, or to accompany, the application have been lodged with the appropriate authority mentioned in article 11(1) and the fee required to be paid has been paid. When you submit an application via the planning portal, the council receives the application and all documents by email and the fee is transferred over to them. The LPA can not treat the application as invalid until you agree to their change of the description. Refer to the following which mentions that Checking the accuracy of the description of development should not delay validation of an application: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/making-an-application#Changes-to-the-description-of-development

If you submitted an application through the Planning Portal and all required particulars were provided along with the correct fee then the council has to deem the validation date as the date they receive the application, not a date 1 or 2 weeks later when they have processed and registered the application. If they are not doing this then they are manipulating the system

There is currently a concern amongst many LAs of applicants falsely claiming self-build status in order to avoid BNG. Most, but not all, LAs will require a s106 agreement to secure self-build against a planning application but if the applicant tries to change to a private market dwelling instead after than they can effectively circumvent BNG as it can only be required as a pre-commencement condition. Out of curiosity, which Council are you dealing with and have they added the requirement for a Unilateral Undertaking (UU) to their validation checklist or to a Development Plan Document? If I was in your position I would raise a validation dispute and try to argue that a UU should not be required.

You would be surprised at how more council's are putting policies in place to not discuss or allow any amendments to a live application. Lichfield DC have a no householder amendment policy: https://www.lichfielddc.gov.uk/planning-developers-business/planning-fees/6 Southwark Council will charge you a fee to amend a live application, unless you had previously used their pre-app advice service: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/pre-application-advice-service?chapter=4

I would just contact the development management team and ask for copies of the supporting documents that were submitted alongside the discharge of condition application. I am aware of some councils adopting a policy to automatically remove information, other than the decision notice, from applications once 3 years have passed from the decision date. Probably as a measure to save space on their servers.

Would this not fall under Class C - Any other alteration to the roof of a dwellinghouse? Under this class there is no requirement to use similar materials and there is no restriction to being in a conservation area.

If you haven't started any works then you would want to choose Lawful Development: Proposed Use. One thing to note is that the height measurement of 3m will include the roof lantern that you have shown.

Looking at the plans, you are proposing to replace the existing L-shaped extension which goes out 5.8m with a smaller extension which extends out about 2.9m. Assuming your property has PD rights and that the proposed extension is no more than 3m high, you can apply for a Lawful Development Certificate (LDC). The plans you have should be acceptable for a LDC.

Just to answer the title of your post, the minor excavations you are proposing would not constitute development and so would not require planning permission.

You could remove the existing two-storey rear extension to build the 8m rear extension under Prior Approval. It wouldn't be assessed in relation to the 30% Green Belt limit.

I don't think there is a 5m rule. It is most likely that having it within 5m of the house would mean that the shed is 2m+ from the rear boundary which is what the planning officer wants.

It's a bit of a catch 22 to be honest. Even if you first built the bits under PD that you wanted, those additions would then go towards the 30% calculation and so you may be refused permission for the parts that can't be built under PD if it would exceed the 30% figure.

From the original floorplan that OP posted which shows that the garage extends beyond the front of the house and therefore if the extension joins to the garage then it would be beyond the principle elevation. Why is everyone so sure that the garage is an original part of the house for the proposed extension to be under rear and side extension rules? @vik2001 do you know if the garage is an original part of the house or a later addition?

Just to make it clear, what you are building is a side extension, unless the garage is an original part of the house or was there before 1948 in which case it would be treated as a rear extension. Planning permission is required for what you are building for two reasons: The extension joins on to the existing garage that is to be converted and as the garage extends out beyond the principle elevation of the house, it does not meet PD rules. As the side extension is within 2m of the boundary, the height of the roof eaves is limited to 3m under PD.