single-storey extension would extend beyond a side wall of the original dwellinghouse

[Gerhardt]

We are in the process of obtaining planning for our chalet bungalow in the green belt/AONB/AGLV. The house sits in the middle of a 1.8acre woodlands plot. 
 

We secured full planning to increase and convert roof space into habitable accommodation, this will increase the overall size of the property by 30% from the original house which is the max we are allowed. 
 

Once planning was secured we submitted a COL application with the council for a single story, 4m back extension(max we can do in the greenbelt) which got refused. ?

 

The house is  18.5m wide, with 0.7m x 3M protrusion at one end, this is deemed a side wall by the council.

 

Here is an extract from their refusal letter -

 

“The proposed extension would extend fully across the rear of the existing dwelling, including extending beyond a wall considered to be a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse. Implemented application, reference 81/P/00235, indicates the floorplan of the original dwelling which included the rear projection which the conservatory is attached to. The proposed extension would replace the existing conservatory and as such would be considered to extend beyond a side wall of the original dwellinghouse. The extension would measure approximately 18.5 metres in width and as such would have a greater width 9.25 metres which is approximately half the width of the original dwellinghouse
It is noted, that regardless of an original side wall being demolished prior to development commencing, an extension would still be considered to extend beyond an original side wall as the term 'original' is specified within the GDPO as in relation to a building, other than a building which is Crown land, existing on 1st July 1948, as existing on that date or in relation to a building, other than a building which is Crown land, built on or after 1st July 1948, as so built.”

 

Has anyone ever had to deal with this? Any creative ways around this or does anyone know of any case law we can use to challenge the decision?

 

The planning consultant I had out before we bought the house was of the view that as long as we don’t “attach” the rear extension to the protrusion it could not be a reason for refusal but I have ready planning appeals(in London) that still got refused on this basis. 

The architect we are using is very familiar with the planning laws for the area we live in and have designed just about every house/conversion in this area. He was very surprised when they refused  the application as they have had many similar applications approved according to him. 

 

Really hoping there is someone on this forum that overcame this and can shed some light on how and what they did.
 

Edited December 19, 2021 by Gerhardt
Better topic description

[Temp]

Can you post a before and after floor plan as I'm having problems following the description. The one you posted doesn't appear to show the existing conservatory or the proposed extension so is it the before or after?

[Temp]

The bit you quoted appears to explain why planning permission might be needed but doesn't actually give a reason(s) for rejection. Can you post the whole rejection letter with address and planning ref redacted if you like.

[Gerhardt]

Here is the before including the conservatory which we intend to remove. 

 

 

Edited December 19, 2021 by Gerhardt
To simplify understanding of layout

[Gerhardt]

Here is the proposed ground floor plan.

[Gerhardt]

Here is the planning officer report. I am obviously it disputing the legality of their refusal, my architect just never had this type of thing refused according to him and as mentioned he is a very reputable architect in the area. So I am looking for recommendations/loopholes how we can overcome this obstacle. 

21_P_02185-OFFICER_REPORT-1615062.pdf

[Gerhardt]

And here is a photo of the back of the house as is.

[Temp]

OK so it wasn't a Planning Application it was an application for a Certificate of Lawfulness to determine if Planning Permission was required. I'm pretty sure we could have told you that would be refused because of the rules in here..

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/830643/190910_Tech_Guide_for_publishing.pdf

 

Specifically page 22 which defines "side walls"

 

Where an extension is beyond any side wall, the restrictions in (j) will apply. Any extension can only be a single storey, must be less than 4 metres in height and can not be more than half the width of the original house. The width of the original house should be calculated at its widest point.

 

There might be other reasons why they think you need Planning Permission.   

 

However all this refusal means is you need to actually apply for Planning Permission.  

[Gerhardt]

Thanks for your reply, I did say it was a COL application in my original post and I also did say I am not disputing their reasons for refusal which after this weekend of research I could become a planning officer myself ?

what I asked for is if anyone knows of anything creative around this bump in the road, something like a trade off or something like not attaching to the “side wall”

The architect is of the opinion that we can extend 300mm from the side wall to the furthest end of the extension under PD, then submit a COL application for a very large garden room and use that as a trade off to do the infill where the conservatory currently is.

[Mr Punter]

I sounds like 81/P/00235 may have added on to the side of the house.  Can you post the plans from that application, as that is the one the decision is based on?  From the reference it may have been 40 years ago!

[Gerhardt]

Also we can’t do a planning application for the back extension as we have used the 30% we are allowed to with the planning application we did to increase the roof space. 

[Gerhardt]

1 minute ago, Mr Punter said:

I sounds like 81/P/00235 may have added on to the side of the house.  Can you post the plans from that application, as that is the one the decision is based on?  From the reference it may have been 40 years ago!

That is not “original” and is the little area on the proposed plans called display/bar area.

[Mr Punter]

Do you have a plan of the building as originally built?  The LPA seem to think they have, and your application does not fit in with PD.  I cannot see how the conservatory could be considered part of the original dwelling.

[Temp]

38 minutes ago, Gerhardt said:

Thanks for your reply, I did say it was a COL application in my original post and I also did say I am not disputing their reasons for refusal which after this weekend of research I could become a planning officer myself ?

what I asked for is if anyone knows of anything creative around this bump in the road, something like a trade off or something like not attaching to the “side wall”

The architect is of the opinion that we can extend 300mm from the side wall to the furthest end of the extension under PD, then submit a COL application for a very large garden room and use that as a trade off to do the infill where the conservatory currently is.

 

Yeah sorry I was rushing to go out. Got two teenagers needing PCR tests ?

 

 

[Temp]

 

7 hours ago, Gerhardt said:

The house is  18.5m wide, with 0.7m x 3M protrusion at one end, this is deemed a side wall by the council.

 

That's correct. I assume this bit is part of the original house...

 

From the Technical Guide..

I don't think the conservatory really changes anything.

[Temp]

The technical guide isn't clear if the following is PDR..

 

I suspect they will argue that its still a side extension as its to the right of the red line which counts as a side wall of the original house. In that case it fails because its wider than half the width of the original house.

 

[Gerhardt]

19 minutes ago, Temp said:

 

 

That's correct. I assume this bit is part of the original house...

 

From the Technical Guide..

I don't think the conservatory really changes anything.

Never said it does that is why I excluded that from the original floorplan posted.

[Temp]

Ill go back to sleep ?

[Gerhardt]

6 minutes ago, Temp said:

The technical guide isn't clear if the following is PDR..

 

I suspect they will argue that its still a side extension as its to the right of the red line which counts as a side wall of the original house. In that case it fails because its wider than half the width of the original house.

 

This is more what I want this conversation to focus on, i got one of the big planning consultant companies to asses this before we bought the house and he was op the opinion that there are ways around this similar to how you have sketched it up. The architect mentioned something similar although everything I read up online this weekend indicates something different, I.e only half the width of the original house, hence my question to see if anyone has done something similar to overcome this situation. I will post the planning consultant’s report tomorrow when I log on for work. Hope your kids are ok and that is a false alarm.

[Gerhardt]

3 minutes ago, Temp said:

Ill go back to sleep ?

?

[Mr Punter]

I really can't see how the small kink in the wall makes it a side elevation.

[Gerhardt]

6 minutes ago, Mr Punter said:

I really can't see how the small kink in the wall makes it a side elevation.

Me neither, wish the planning office thought that as well.

I don’t think the law was ever intended for this house to not be extended under that specific PD laws but unfortunately that is what we now have to overcome ???

Edited December 19, 2021 by Gerhardt
Autocorrect mistake

[Temp]

7 hours ago, Gerhardt said:

We secured full planning to increase and convert roof space into habitable accommodation, this will increase the overall size of the property by 30% from the original house which is the max we are allowed. 

 

If you haven't implemented that yet i wonder if you can still make another planning application despite the 30% rule?  This must happen when people "change their minds" about what they want...

 

For example lets suppose you apply for the rear extension and they add a condition saying you can't build it if the loft is converted. You can build the extension first because the loft hasn't been converted. Then later you can convert the loft relying on the original planning grant which has no such matching condition.

 

I'm not sure what scope the planners have to stop this. I know its not easy for the planners to withdraw a previously approved grant. One to ask a planning consultant about. 

[DevilDamo]

Submit a CoL application showing what you can do under PD and then go in for a HH application for what you’ve just had refused. This ‘may’ show the impact via PD is worse and you could also offer them withdrawal of your PD rights, which together may be seen as Very Special Circumstances. 

[DevilDamo]

6 hours ago, Gerhardt said:

Here is the planning officer report. I am obviously it disputing the legality of their refusal, my architect just never had this type of thing refused according to him and as mentioned he is a very reputable architect in the area. So I am looking for recommendations/loopholes how we can overcome this obstacle. 

21_P_02185-OFFICER_REPORT-1615062.pdf 117.42 kB · 8 downloads

I know of your architect as I’m very local. Even professionals can get the interpretation of the rules wrong. However, I am quite surprised at the oversight because it is quite clear that there are side walls to which the basis of the CoL application was refused on.