ianfish Posted August 16, 2020 Share Posted August 16, 2020 (edited) 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 August 16, 2020 by ianfish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe90 Posted August 16, 2020 Share Posted August 16, 2020 (edited) Best post you’re ideas here (with drawings, crayon will do) for feedback, lots of knowledgeable people here! Edited August 16, 2020 by joe90 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeSharp01 Posted August 16, 2020 Share Posted August 16, 2020 The 45 degree rule & right to light is much discussed here so you should find some support. I think we turned it over last week: Have a look here: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianfish Posted August 16, 2020 Author Share Posted August 16, 2020 Our drawing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Punter Posted August 16, 2020 Share Posted August 16, 2020 I don't think the 45 degree rule applies to you as your extension looks like it is Permitted Development. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe90 Posted August 16, 2020 Share Posted August 16, 2020 @ianfish, can you include neighbours house/S also rear view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevilDamo Posted August 16, 2020 Share Posted August 16, 2020 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 More sharing options...
Mr Punter Posted August 16, 2020 Share Posted August 16, 2020 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 More sharing options...
DevilDamo Posted August 16, 2020 Share Posted August 16, 2020 (edited) 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 August 16, 2020 by DevilDamo 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Punter Posted August 16, 2020 Share Posted August 16, 2020 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 More sharing options...
DevilDamo Posted August 16, 2020 Share Posted August 16, 2020 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bassanclan Posted August 16, 2020 Share Posted August 16, 2020 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 More sharing options...
Temp Posted August 16, 2020 Share Posted August 16, 2020 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Jimbo Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 I'm with Temp, and the devil. IMHO that is not permitted devl. It's a wraparound. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Punter Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 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 More sharing options...
Temp Posted August 18, 2020 Share Posted August 18, 2020 (edited) 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 August 18, 2020 by Temp 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevilDamo Posted August 18, 2020 Share Posted August 18, 2020 @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? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianfish Posted August 18, 2020 Author Share Posted August 18, 2020 The wrapround elenent already exists and was completed by the previous owners...kink in wall included which mirrors the boundary of the property Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Punter Posted August 18, 2020 Share Posted August 18, 2020 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Punter Posted August 18, 2020 Share Posted August 18, 2020 curiouser and curiouser... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevilDamo Posted August 18, 2020 Share Posted August 18, 2020 (edited) 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. Edited August 18, 2020 by DevilDamo 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bassanclan Posted August 18, 2020 Share Posted August 18, 2020 If pantry, utility and cloaks are all extensions then @DevilDamois 100% right and this is not PD. His drawing above makes your PD rights clear. Doesn't mean it will be turned down if you apply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianfish Posted January 20, 2021 Author Share Posted January 20, 2021 It was granted as in the drawing.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevilDamo Posted January 21, 2021 Share Posted January 21, 2021 Granted under a formal Householder application? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianfish Posted January 21, 2021 Author Share Posted January 21, 2021 (edited) 11 hours ago, DevilDamo said: Granted under a formal Householder application? applied via the BC...its been granted. Edited January 21, 2021 by ianfish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now