Penny926

Hi there! Wanted to get this groups thoughts on how to interpret subjective wording from a pre-app, we submitted the proposal below for a first floor rear extension, the side extension is already built and we want to widen it to 4.390M as show below, it would basically be half the width of the house (our proposal). When we met the planning officer, they gave some good suggestions. They wanted the roof to be a flat roof for the extension, and then they told us that in it's current state it looks disproportionate, with one of the main reasons being the window is off centre, specific wording from their review was as follows: 'the proposed first floor rear infill extension appears excessively wide. This is not helped by the off centre position of the window. You clarified in the meeting that this window is existing. Having a centrally located window would make this extension appear less disproportionate. A reduction in the width of the extension would still likely be necessary even with the change to the window position.' Based on this, we have revised the proposal to look like this, we reduced the width by 100cm, and centered the window. One main worry now is - is the reduction in width sufficient? When they visited we asked them for a quantification, but they dodged that question and their written report uses subjective wording such as 'would still likely be necessary..'., so we don't know how to interpret this. I know the council allows follows up to pre-application but that would cost us another £200. So wanted to ask this group, does the above look reasonable? I was thinking of emailing the planning officer, but again given they were not willing to put a number on what kind of reduction would be acceptable, I'm not sure i'd get anything concrete, before we hit submit wanted to ask this forums perspective... Does the revised plan look like an acceptable interpretation of their concern?

Hi all - an update on this matter. I sent the council an email asking them what the likely decision would be.. here is what they said: - there is nothing that indicates the prior approval extension had been built in accordance with the plans or legislation. - In order to rectify this, you will have to demolish part of the extension and built in accordance with the plans submitted as part of the prior approval application. There would need to be a gap between the extension and the existing side/rear projection - You can withdraw this application and once the extension has been rebuilt in line with the above, you can then apply for the infill extension. This will very likely be the quickest way to resolve this. Firstly, I am grateful that they took time out to respond. I responded back saying we would start the rectifying work they requested. I also suggested instead of withdrawing, could we rectify and update the application, the statutory expiry date is not till the 10th July, so if we can get the work done and show it to them then no need to withdraw.. (i'm not sure if they will accept this, but seems more logical then withdrawing and resubmitting..)

Thanks! Yeah - I see that now. Hence why we are hoping we can restore the property to what was approved under PD/PA and then deal with the infill as separate matter. 'I’m surprised you were granted Prior Approval as it doesn’t comply with the PD requirements' - on this... goes back to my first statement, if the council have goofed up an approval under PD/PA I was asking if they have any remit to revoke or correct the approval.

Thank you Mike! Yes maintaining a gap would be odd - which is why I kind of think that clause is also kind of strange. I'm hoping we can appeal on those grounds. We have indeed moved the middle pillar, but will have to incur cost now to move it back and correct the structure. We live on a road with a varied style of houses, but yes there are examples of this kind of extension. I think the council are being very strict on the extension of an extension rule, which I can understand but is frustrating. We have put the 'as built' image through retrospective - this is what I think they will reject.

Thank you all! This is very helpful! I think it might be easier to show with pictures, the side extension here is shown on the existing plan as the 'kitchen', it is unusual side extension (dates back to 1975), where they built the side extension and moved the stairs etc. Attaching the 1) Existing plan image and the 2) Approved plan under permitted development and 3) What we have built (just the shell, so substantial completion). The infill i am referring to would fill the gap between the 'diner' (on the approved plan) and the new rear wall from the approved extension. Their decision notice states: Conditions: 1. The materials used on the external surfaces of the development shall match those used in the building to which it is attached in terms of style, colour, texture and, in the case of brickwork, bonding, coursing and pointing. 2. All openable parts of any side windows in the extension shall be more than 1.7 metres above finished floor level and permanently retained as such. Any side windows shall be in obscure glazing and permanently retained as such. Once built, no further side windows shall be installed. Informative: 1. The Council cannot confirm that this development is lawful until it has been built and until you have complied with the conditions of this decision. Once you have done so, if you would like such proof, you will need to submit an application for a certificate of lawfulness of existing development and show that you have met the conditions. 2. The approved extension shall not be attached to the existing side extension. Failure to comply may result in the approved extension being unlawful. So there is a clause, about the extensions not being attached, but hard to interpret that - does it mean maintain a gap between the two? Given they are likely to reject the infill, the scenario I am hoping for is that we restore the property to what was approved and then appeal for the infill.

I see.. that’s really helpful. Thank you for the research and quick response. I may even be able to sleep tonight 😀

Thanks.. yes we can do that as it’s only a rear extension.. but they can’t revoke their approval to the permitted section?

Hi all - good evening. So glad there is a forum and a site to discuss these kind of things! This has been a great stress for us, so wanted to share our dilemma and concern and hoping to get some advise! We have a detached house which on purchase had a side extension already in place (2 story), which extended 3M out to the back. The original house had not been extended. We applied for permitted development for a 6M rear extension for the original house. This was granted on prior consent not required/ no objections etc. The next part we wanted to do was then infill the side rear extension by another 3M to match the permitted development extension. It would look odd without it (an L shape..), and we thought this was a no brainer given they had already given us the 6M of the main house… This is where things went wrong. Being a bit nieve on this all, the builder and I discussed that instead of building the original house extension first and then waiting for the approval on the side, we instead build the whole structure. So that is what we did. We then submitted a retrospective application for the side extension infill - we thought this would be an easy one to get. The council visited last week, and they said they would likely reject the infil, they also seemed perturbed that we had not built the permitted development piece first (they did not buy our rationale that structurally more sound to build the whole rear vs splitting it up). I feel they will reject the infill retrospective, but here is where I wanted some advise, I'm thinking two scenarios: They reject the infill and the say we can only have the permitted development that was agreed on prior consent, we have to undo the infill bit. And we appeal for that one. They reject the infill and now say as we did not build the permitted development work exactly to plan, that application is now cancelled and we have to undo everything. I'm ok if this say number 1 (totally fair..), but worried about number 2… Wanted to understand, would number 2 even be allowed? I'm mean if we have committed a planning breach against a prior consent, I would expect them to ask us to make it good and in align with plans (happy to do that). If they have given us approval under permitted development/prior consent can the turn around and withdraw that? Just super worried that they will say our prior consent that they gave is now revoked and we have to undo all works and start again… Been up all night thinking over this - so any advise would be really great. Thank you