• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About MichaelF

  • Rank
    New Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Hi DevilDamo, That looks very nice well done, I will keep you posted on my progress.
  2. Hi all, I hope everyone is well, I emailed Planning aid England to see what they thought and here is my email and their reply. I hope this helps someone. Good morning I hope you are well, I was hoping you could give me some clarification on the new governments town and country planning (general permitted development) (amendment) (no.2) Order 2020 No 755 article 3. In the section, development not permitted. AA.1. (i) any additional storey is constructed other than on the principle part of the dwellinghouse. Down near the bottom of the legislation in the section, Interpretation of class AA4. It states “principle part” in relation to a dwellinghouse, means that the main part of the dwellinghouse excluding any front, side or rear extension of a lower height, whether this forms part of the original dwellinghouse or is a subsequent addition. The way I read it is I can add the additional storey to my property including over my extension if my extension is of the same height eg I have a 2 storey house with a 2 storey rear extension can build over both? My reasoning for this is because it states “excluding any front, side or rear extension of a lower height” ie a single storey extension, porch or garage as they would be of a lower height. My additional question is my ridge height on my roof on my extension is 370mm lower than the ridge height on the original house would this be considered a “lower height”? I believe the legislation is set up to be storey heights or more. As it would not state extensions of a lower height and it quotes “whether this forms part of the original dwellinghouse or is a subsequent extension”. My understanding of original is when it was built. Thank you for all the clarification provided. Kind regards The reply I got was this. Thank you for your email. As this legislation is new, the planning authorities will be trying to interpret it as you are, and there is likely to be very limited case law or appeal decisions on it yet as a guide. However, I would interpret it as you do, that the principle part can include an extension as long as it is not of a lower height. However, I would take "lower height" to mean just that and if it is 370mm lower then it is likely to fail that point as it is of a lower height. Yes, original means when it was built or as it stood on 1st July 1948 if older than that. I hope that helps. Regards, Volunteer Advisor Planning Advisor (MRTPI) Planning Aid England
  3. Good morning DevilDamo, Thank you for your reply again, I have seen this lots of times. I think the wording is open to interpretation in my mind and a few other people in construction I have spoken too. Perhaps they should of used the wording like Principle part, The original footprint of the house excluding any additions of any description even of a lower height ie porches, garages, single storey structures attached to the property. Then it would not be open to interpretation. Thanks kindly again Michael
  4. Thanks DevilDamo for replying, Regarding your 1st post the wording in the legislation does not say you can not build over any extensions, it clearly states of a lower height. But what constitutes a lower height? Regarding your 2nd post my architect did submit drawings under permitted development but was refused, application number 3/20/2101/CLPO. The proposal includes the addition of a front roof extension and dormer and therefore part of the dwellinghouse would, as a result of the works, extend beyond the plane of any existing roof slope which forms the principle elevation of the dwellinghouse and fronts a highway. The cubic content of the resulting roof space, taking into account the previous additions is approximately 71.8 cubic metres and would does exceed the cubic content of the original roof space by more than 50 cubic metres. The enlargement must be constructed so that the dormer window is set back not less than 0.2m from the eaves - The rear dormer window would not be set back by 0.2m from the eaves and the rear dormer would extend beyond the outside wall of the original dwellinghouse. One side window is proposed which is not shown to be obscure glazed and non-opening unless the parts of the window which can be opened are more than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which the window is installed. But raising the rear extension roof was okay and was not in the conclusion of the officers report. The proposal would include the raising of the roof ridge of the existing extension and but as a result of the works, would not exceed the height of the highest part of the existing roof. So what I am try to work out is this difference in height in permitted development for adding an additional storey? Thanks again for any help it’s much appreciated. kind regards Michael
  5. Hi Taff thank you I have just posted in planning I hope it makes sense.
  6. Hi all, I submitted drawings to add an additional storey under the new permitted development rights and it has been refused on 4 points. 1. No measurement from floor to ceiling height but could of worked it out, as existing measurement and new overall measurement was there. 2.They are saying the principal part is defined as the main part of the building excluding any front, side or rear extensions of a lower height, whether this forms part of the original building or a subsequent addition. (I do have a rear 2 storey extension built under planning permission in 2007 but the roof had to be 270mm lower than the original house roof to get through planning). 3. The roof pitch of the principal part of the dwellinghouse following the development must be the same as the roof pitch of the existing dwellinghouse. (They are saying it does not comply as the roof pitch of the additional storey would not follow the roof pitch of the principal part of the dwellinghouse. Therefore overall the development does not comply with this criterion). My architect drew the roof on the extension at the same height as the house roof. But not sure on this issue as of yet. 4. The street scene. (But a case has just been overturned as the street scene should not be included in permitted development). So I am not to worried about that at the moment. My case is under eastherts planning application no 3/21/0414/ASDPN. My main question is this does a 370mm difference in roof height from the original house roof height to my extension roof height mean it is of a lower height? I am a retired bricklayer and in my eyes I interpret it as building over a porch or a single storey extension or a garage, something of a significant difference in height. Does anyone know or had dealings with this? Looking at the town and country legislation 2020 no 755. AA.1. (i). Any additional storey is constructed other than on the principal part of the dwellinghouse. When you look at the interpretation at the bottom of the page in the legislation it states “principal part” in relation to a dwellinghouse, means the main part of the dwellinghouse excluding any front, side or rear extension of a lower height, whether this forms part of the original dwellinghouse or is a subsequent addition. Thanks for any help Kind regards Michael
  7. Hi all, thanks for excepting me into this forum, from what I have read it looks like a wealth of knowledge. I am hoping for some advice on getting my project though planning. Kind regards Michael