Jump to content

45' rule


ianfish

Recommended Posts

Having had and continue to have a few issues with suppliers for part of our idea....

 

We thought lets get some local input for a comparrasion. 

 

One luck at our plan and it was a teeth sucking oh you cant do that moment from this fella which kind of scared us...

 

He had lots of other why are you wanting it like that...

 

He came over cocky over truly unaware of alternatives. I'm trying to be kind here.

 

But he left us with huge doubts and worry that a design we have spent months developing isnt any good.

 

Having looked on Google earth at least two maybe three neighbouring properties have 4m extensions 

Edited by ianfish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mr Punter said:

I don't think the 45 degree rule applies to you as your extension looks like it is Permitted Development.


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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, DevilDamo said:


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.

 

It looks like a rear extension.  I understand it can be 6.0m with a prior approval application.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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)

Edited by DevilDamo
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DevilDamo said:

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)

 

I disagree.  The proposal more closely resembles that at the bottom of page 19 and would comply as long as it does not project more than 6.0m from the rear wall.  Not sure if the pantry wall is currently the outside wall?  It is shown as single leaf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If the plan was altered slightly to ensure the left hand kitchen wall goes straight back at 90 degrees to the pantry then the plan will most definitely NOT be a wraparound extension. The width of the building has only been increased where that small kink has been put in and has led to a minor overstepping of PD.

 

Assuming the existing property has not already been extended then the key measurement is the distance from the pantry to the back wall of the kitchen. If it is under 6m (and the right hand wall is straightened) then it will fall under PD as @Mr Punter says.

 

You could if you wished apply for a certificate of lawfulness, which would give a future buyer certainty, but this can also be insured against during conveyancing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DevilDamo said:

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)

 

I agree. 

 

The proposal is basically a wrap around extension that has rear and side elements even though it doesn't wrap around what most people would consider to be the side. The reason its also a side extension is explained bottom half of page 23.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of the the guidance makes any mention of "wraparound", so it is not a relevant definition or description.  This is a rear extension.  If the extension is 6m or less from the rear wall it is OK.  He may need to create a slight dog leg on the kitchen side (if the pantry is currently the outside wall an the distance to the proposed new rear wall is >6.0m) but it looks to otherwise comply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bit that fills in the "L" of the existing house by the pantry is classed as BOTH a rear and a side extension so both sets of rules apply. Page 23 says..

 

Quote

Where an  extension  fills  the area between a side elevation  and a  rear  wall,  then the restrictions  on extensions  beyond rear  walls  and side walls  will  both  apply

 

That includes the "no more than half the width" rule for side extensions. Its unfair but true. It means L shape houses can't have a full width rear extension where as flat back houses can.

Edited by Temp
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, DevilDamo said:

@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?

 

No just looking at the guidance here where the reason the lower one is not acceptable is stated as it extends more than 6 metres beyond the rear wall.  No mention of "wraparound" in the document.

image.thumb.png.0a562fa04020d4189b8c35b988f032fc.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Plan.jpg

Edited by DevilDamo
  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...