Matt Davey

Thanks both - PP it is then! Hopefully a no brainier for the planners - especially as we will be safely disposing of a known toxic substance that has long started to break up.

We have an existing 3m tall garage/workshop which sits alongside the house but partially in front of the principle elevation. It is war-time era (probably built before the house in fact which is a 1960's bungalow) and constructed from concrete block walls with Asbestos roof sheeting.....yes I know the 'A' word!. For this reason as well as the fact it leaks and is an eye sore, we are looking to replace the roof with new trusses and tiles. Under permitted development we have read that, provided the various criteria is met, any outbuilding if fitted with a dual pitch roof can be 2.5m at the eaves and 4m at the peak. This is what we should like to install as the replacement, but we are unsure how PD applies to existing outbuildings and although we meet all the remaining criteria there is the issue that some of the garage does sit just in-front of the main dwelling. Has anyone had a similar scenario & have any useful knowledge they could share with us please?

Thank you DevilDamo - this was a really helpful response and we follow all you say. Will look into the window opening point/SAP calculation you make as we've now plotted out our preferred window positions and sizes. Also, we'll make further checks on what we could do to the existing bungalow in terms of external cladding (maybe for insulation gain) and whether or not we could possibly avoid PP altogether, to then have the PD built extension fit in with existing. Thanks again!

With some mesh applied these can be rendered upto the widow frame, but I have also seen PVC flat strip glued to cover it up too. I agree that it is a raw building material, often with blemishes that is not desirable to be on show if it can be helped. Doesn't seem to bother most by the seems of it though! Perhaps just the more OCD of us! ?

If full planning offers any advantages then we would certainly consider going down that route but does this bring the risk the PO could reject, whereas under PD it would sail through? Our only additional concerns around getting approval via either process are: 1. that we want a good portion of full height triple-glazed windows (on the rear elevation) to the new extension. This is to make the most of the views but we have read that planning may be needed if windows differ ‘greatly’ from the original dwelling. Being an old bungalow the current ones are, in the most part, short and wide. 2. we should like to improve the tired old pebble dash render of the bugallow with either a smooth concrete render or a timber cladding. Which we would then use on the new extension for continuity. Perhaps even applying an external insulation to the bungalow first which has the smallest cavity walls known to man at the moment! As for size; We opted for 9mx11m as this would keep us under the 100m2 CIL threshold....as well giving an approx 250m2 Total for the resulting house....which is more than big enough for our present and future needs

Thanks all for your valued input! We have come to the same conclusion; that the small protruding portion of original dwelling creates a rear & side PD extension issue, which in our instance hinders a rear full length extension. Should it not have ever been there, or have been a previous extension to the main dwelling - we could have extended fully along the rear without challenge, what a silly quirk! As such we are revising our scope to remove extension 'A' altogether, and increase the size of extension 'B' to finish flush with the rearmost section of the house. As we see it this would be fully compliant with PD for a side extension as it is less than half the width of the existing dwelling, and would still give us a similar square meter-age overall. Is this how you see it too, we would be interested to know? Thank you

Hi there We joined the forum yesterday and used our 'introduce' entry of the new members group to outline a question we have over permitted development rights and how rear and side extension potentially inter-relate. In hindsight, we probably put too long an entry and over-complicated our question, so we felt it was probably better to refine our ask and add it to this more specific group. So here it is.... To help describe the question we attach a visual representation of our wish here. extension? Basically, can rear extension 'A' cover the whole back part of the property as it does not join 'B'? In other words, as 'B' uses the full half width condition, does this use up allocation for 'A' in the rear If it helps, our longer entry posted yesterday explains all other elements to our plot to pre-empt other questions which may follow to help get an answer to this. Really grateful for anyone who can help us understand the 50 page technical guidance issued around permitted development rights. Thanks in anticipation.

Thanks both - unfortunately we have found the opposite ref planning approvals in our area. Our bungalow is relatively rural and what few properties there are nearby have all tried and failed for planning permissions in the past (although admittedly nothing exactly the same as our plans). Also, the extensions shown in our sketch are indeed what we wish to build, hence looking to get some clarification on whether or not this can be done under PD. Designing something requiring planning permissions will put us at the mercy of the planners and the full suite of planning rules, but PD could not be contested and as such would be our preference. Hence seeking some expert interpretation of the parameters.

Hi all We are keen forum readers on just about every topic for every purchase we make and contribute where we can. As we are just about to embark on our second major house renovation, we feel we could do with a little more peer support so joined you in this community so a hello from us! Also, we have an immediate issue which we go around and around in circles over and that's permitted development rights and prospects for our bungalow and the inter-relationship with side and rear extensions that we plan to do. We read the 50 page document Permitted development rights for householders - Technical Guidance and think one way and on another read we crack something else and then doubt ourselves of what we thought we already knew. Our main question below relates to whether the rear extension we plan to seek to do under PD rights can cover the whole rear of the bungalow. We include a drawing to show layout and the proposal. 1. Our existing detached bungalow is generous in it's width (over 19mtrs) and we benefit from no near boundary or near neighbours in an acre plot. It's orientation to the road and our principle elevation means we can hopefully capitalise on it's orientation. It's rear is south facing towards the view. We understand that a side extension (which we show on our drawing as 'B') can be single storey and up to half the width of the dwelling (4 mtrs max. height). We've shown 'B' as being therefore 9 mtrs to maximise that half width and also made it as deep as the existing dwelling (happens to be 8mtrs). We'd also like to complete a rear extension, shown as 'A' and though we realise we could gain up to 8 mtrs in depth (providing we do the neighbour consultation) we have for neatness sake only taken it out as far as the existing rear section. Rear extension guidance doesn't appear to limited to half width provision like side extensions do. Is that correct? In our example, proposed extensions 'A' and 'B' don't join. They're separated by the original dwelling-house existing stepped out section (the 3500x3100mm part shown also in blue). This was not a previous extension (i.e. it is the original dwelling despite appearances) so we understand doesn't need to be deducted from our PD allowance. However, we wonder that as the stepped out section has both a rear wall and a side wall, will 'A' rear extension be curtailed to forming part of the whole calculation for half width, if we also build 'B'? The closest example that matches our floorplan in the document aforementioned is on page 28 (see also attached), which shows it is ok for PD rights as 'A' and 'B' do not join. That example would appear to suggest the total width is greater that half, whereas earlier examples in that document show that if these were to join, the total of them cannot exceed half width? 2. Another curiosity is whether 'A' and 'B' have to been constructed at distinct and separate times for PD? Is that right and if so, how great a pause in-between builds is required? This seems odd to us. 3. There is also the prospect of making 'A' deeper, coming out by either the balance of 4mtrs (so 900mm) and carrying along the whole back wall or if we want to go full steam ahead, the 8mtrs with neighbourhood consultation? We understand that no more than 50% of the curtilage can be built on, including the original dwelling-house in that area, but with 1 acre that's an issue for us. However, we've read conflicting issues over whether you can only extend by a percentage of your total area of the dwelling-house. Our proposal could end up being over 50%, particularly if we make 'A' deeper. Is there anything like this please which limits how big we can go? We're also aware of the over 100sqm issue for CIL purposes, but that's the only square meter aspect we've read about. We're attempting to construct what we can under PD rights. Saying that, if planning permission gives us a better house ultimately, we're not closed to this route. It may be, that as we're currently pebble-dash with ugly red concrete roof tiles and double glazing which we'd want to replace (with bi-fold and picture windows within the new extensions facing the view) that we will not be able to complete the build effectively enough under PD, so are prevented when looking at those class matters too. Anyone who is interested in this area and puzzle and wishes to help answer this would be very welcome....Thank you!