DevilDamo

As @PeterW and @Temp have mentioned and providing the garage is ‘original’ and not ‘existing’, then yes... you can put on a 6m deep rear extension across the complete width via the Prior Approval (with NCS) route.

The determination of applications will amongst other things take into account the outlook, privacy and daylight imposed on neighbouring properties, in particular primary windows serving habitable rooms. With dual aspect rooms and those windows that are considered secondary, the regulations will be slightly relaxed. Planning approvals stay with the property and not the person so I’m afraid no ‘special circumstances’ would be considered in your situation. The only thing you can do is express your concerns to the LPA formally be either commenting or objecting.

An external width of 2m?

At which floor level and on which elevation is the window to be located?

A two storey extension has much more of an impact than a single storey extension irrespective of the location/position of the property. It is however a little different for a corner plot because the overbearing impact can be seen to be a little worse. If you are going for any two storey side element, check your LPA’s policies and guidance on subservience. Also note the single storey extension could be carried out via PD, assuming the rear projecting part is ‘original’ and not a previous extension.

From a build/construction point of view, it makes absolute perfect sense to allow for the new loft space now as opposed to later and via attic trusses as already mentioned. Be weary of the Planning side of things when considering a 2-storey vs 3-storey property. Depending on the area and the LPA, would they have reservations about building out a 3-storey property as opposed to a 2-storey and then the loft element via PD? Some LPA’s may even look to withdraw certain PD rights if they feel the maximum areas have already been provided meaning they can control any further development which would have normally been allowed via Class B.

It's the wrong example to use in this situation. The one @Temp mentioned/quoted is the correct one. I was just about to log off for the day, but attached is what is possible under PD. Firstly, the red is what I assume to be the "original" house... not existing or how it stands now but original. The blue line are previous extensions that are "not" original". The green is what can be done under PD, so a porch to the front under 3sq.m, a single storey side extension no greater than half the width of the "original" house and a single storey rear extension that does not exceed 3m (assuming it's a semi-detached or terraced property). Of course the OP can increase up 6m via Prior Approval and NCS, etc... Under PD, you "cannot" link the side extension with the rear extension as it will trigger the PD rules for both side "and" rear extensions and of which you would be greater than half the width of the original house. There are ways you can link these extensions but their overall widths have to be reduced to half the width of the house. There have been so many failed CoL applications on this and I can provide so many links to where people have interpreted the rules... incorrectly.

@Mr Punter Is this just your interpretation of the PD rules or have you had personal/direct experience in getting an “L shaped” or wrap around extension through as PD? If it’s the latter, can you provide a link to said application/drawings?

I cannot even being to count how many of these wrap around extensions I have dealt with via both formal Planning and PD. I think we’re going to have agree to disagree in this situation.

Under formal Planning, it would be considered a rear extension. Under PD, the extension would appear to come off an original side wall and an original rear wall and therefore the PD rules for side and rear extensions would kick in. It would straight away fail the ‘half the width’ PD rule for side extensions. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/830643/190910_Tech_Guide_for_publishing.pdf (Bottom of Page 26)

The plan appears to indicate a wrap around extension of which would not be considered PD so formal Planning policies would kick in. The OP or their architect/designer would need to check the LPA’s stance on outlook, privacy and daylight including the 45 degree rule. In some situations, this applies to single storey extensions and a 60 degree line is applied to single storey extensions.

You will need to check your LPA’s validation requirements as to what would need to be submitted to accompany and validate your application. If the information is not submitted upon submission, the LPA will request those prior to the application being validated and then determined.

An objection does not mean Planning will be refused as the final decision is that of the LPA (or Committee if it went that far). Planning decisions stay with the property/site and not the person so the decisions are based on the existing and future impact. I personally can’t see why Planning would be refused as any potential overlooking would not appear to affect anybody’s amenity space.

What have you actually been asked to provide as a tree ‘survey’ is one thing but a tree ‘report’ is another? There are also Arboricultural Impact Assessments and Arboricultural Method Statements and all of which are dependent on how the proposals may affect the trees. I was involved in a job in Oxford and the contractor there also recommended Boward. I reviewed his information, requested a few changes and the LPA were satisfied and approval was given.

Skeiling ?

There could be a number of reasons of which could relate to the structural, fire safety or thermal efficiency. If you have proof the conversion works were done in 1995, you should be able to get away in complying with the Building Regulations at the time as opposed to the current BR’s. You would require a visit from some kind of professional... an architect/designer or Building Control but bearing in mind the latter (as mentioned above) could open up a can of worms. Another possible reason could be if the conversion works required Planning approval. While the majority can be carried out under PD, there are certain rules and restrictions with PD. If it didn’t meet those requirements and the works required formal Planning, then Local Planning polices would kick in, in terms of off-street parking, overlooking, etc... Similarly to the BR situation, if you can prove the works were carried out in 1995, then you’d need to check the PD rules at the time. Although saying that, you could just pursue a Certificate of Lawfulness as it’s been there for 15 years.

The overbearing impact can come in a variety of forms. A flat roof in my opinion has a more overbearing impact than a pitched roof but a lean-to/gable roof will have more of an overbearing impact than a hipped roof. The fact you’re having to go via formal Planning means you have no option but to comply with Planning policies and design guidance along with taking into account comments from third parties. If the Planning Officer came back requesting a hipped roof and in order to overcome that, would you consider a slight reduction in the depth of the extension from 4m to 3750mm or 3500mm? You may have to agree to reach a compromise.

Because with a 4m deep extension, it’s usually quite difficult to get a suitable pitch that would come below a first floor window cill. I’ve just drawn it up based on the dimensions shown and the rear angle is more like 13 degrees. Bear in mind your Velux’s will need flashing kits for a pitch lower than 15 degrees. I assume the lean-to roof element on the right (when looking back at the house) will be steeper than that to the rear because the width of that side part is less than 4m but would meet the rear wall at the same height? You also mentioned about if you ended up with a hipped roof on the left, you would need to move your build over. If the hipped roof detail would match that on the right, your left hand wall can remain where it is. To be honest, you could even pull it across closer to that boundary, allow for an eccentrically loaded foundations and introduce a small parapet for the hipped roof to run in to. This is obviously assuming and on the basis the Planning Officer requests a hipped roof over a lean-to/gable.

Et voila!

With 3 being a very low figure, what additional measures would need to be taken to the other elements to achieve a more common figure of 5?

Just out of interest, what angle is your proposed roof?

We aren’t saying you are but just trying to advise on a possible PD fall back position, which is possible with 3m but anything more would require neighbours to be consulted. Although on that note, you can’t have a wrap around extension under PD anyway.

The issue with that is that if the neighbours are already kicking up a stink with a shallower depth extension, there is no way they would keep quiet for a 6m deep extension via the Prior Approval/Neighbour Consultation Scheme. It can help to have a PD fall back position but no such thing in the OP’s case.

Happy reading... https://www.fsp-law.com/planning-permission-and-commencement-of-development/

Was only in Portsmouth on Saturday. Well... Gunwharf Quays, masked up and battling the shops ?