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

[DevilDamo]

On 19/12/2021 at 10:09, Gerhardt said:

this will increase the overall size of the property by 30% from the original house which is the max we are allowed

Btw, your increase is actually 44% as confirmed by the Officers Report. Also Guildford B.C. do not have stated max. uplift figures as it’s determined on a number of different factors. 

[Gerhardt]

I have spoken to the planning consultant I had out in March just after we bought the house and as long as we don't attach with emphasis on attach, to the rear protrusion it is not a side extension but classed as a rear extension and then width of the extension restriction falls away as that is only applicable to side extensions.

[Temp]

3 hours ago, Gerhardt said:

I have spoken to the planning consultant I had out in March just after we bought the house and as long as we don't attach with emphasis on attach, to the rear protrusion it is not a side extension but classed as a rear extension and then width of the extension restriction falls away as that is only applicable to side extensions.

 

We're they able to cite case law for that or is it just their opinion? 

[DevilDamo]

This is an extension, so anything attaching to that would also be considered and dealt with as a side and rear extension. So it looks like you have two areas in which it would not meet PD. 

Edited December 21, 2021 by DevilDamo

[Gerhardt]

11 hours ago, DevilDamo said:

, so anything attaching to that would also be c

 

11 hours ago, DevilDamo said:

This is an extension, so anything attaching to that would also be considered and dealt with as a side and rear extension. So it looks like you have two areas in which it would not meet PD. 

Nope, that is original as per drawings of when the house was built in 1949

[bassanclan]

The study definitely looks like an extension, both in the way the rooms are laid out and the way it looks from the outside.

 

I would suggest that you need to prove it is original from1949 for the planners to believe you and your planning consultant should have foreseen this.

[Gerhardt]

5 hours ago, bassanclan said:

The study definitely looks like an extension, both in the way the rooms are laid out and the way it looks from the outside.

 

I would suggest that you need to prove it is original from1949 for the planners to believe you and your planning consultant should have foreseen this.

As mentioned in my previous post, it is original as we have the drawings on the house from when it was built in 1949. It was an original attached garage that got converted into the study.

[dpmiller]

is an "attached" garage not a separate space tho, like a lean-to? Was it converted to  a "study" before or after completion? 

[Gerhardt]

Thanks for all the comments on this post and don't want to offend anyone but it was never created to end up in a debate about the garage, but rather about what the LPO refused our PD application on. I am sure if they were of the unlikely view that the "garage" was indeed a side extension they would have refused the application on that basis as well. I have had two planning consultants on site and a number of architects before putting a design team together an no one was of the view that it is not part of the original house.

 

My original post was in relation to the dining room protrusion for which I now have clarity on.

 

Have a great Christmas all and I will update on the outcome once we have resolved the issues.

 

[bassanclan]

1 hour ago, Gerhardt said:

As mentioned in my previous post, it is original as we have the drawings on the house from when it was built in 1949. It was an original attached garage that got converted into the study.

 

If it was originally a garage later converted to a garage it is indeed an extension to the habitable space.

Although it appears the council may have made a mistake in their description of the dining room reason for refusal, upon closer examination their overall reason for refusal would remain valid for a certificate of lawfulness.

[Temp]

Just for reference here is a relevant Appeal Decision here supports the planners rejection in relation to it being a side extension of the dining room. In this case the projection was a small store they planned to demolish...

 

https://modgov.lbbd.gov.uk/Internet/documents/s119272/Appeal decision - 23 Mill Lane.pdf

 

4. Any house which has a plan form which is not a simple rectangle will have secondary side elevations in addition to its main side elevation. Such is the case here where a small store, which is a feature of the original dwellinghouse projects from the rear elevation and so has two side elevations. One continues the side elevation of the main house. The other is a short side elevation adjacent to the kitchen window of the main house.

 

5. It is from this short side elevation that the limitation of half the width of the original dwellinghouse must be measured. The width of the original dwellinghouse is approximately 6.75m. Half the width of the dwellinghouse would therefore be approximately 3.375m. But the extension proposed would extend across the full width of the back of the house by about 5.4m from the side wall of the existing store and so would exceed the limitation.

snip

7. This outcome may appear to be anomalous because, if the store had not been built as part of the original house, the limitation would not have applied and the outcome would have been different. But, in determining this appeal, I must apply the provisions of the GPDO as they are enacted. These provisions apply to the house as originally built so the fact that the store would be removed as part of the proposal makes no difference to the outcome of this appeal. Nor would it have made any difference if the store had previously been demolished.

 

[Temp]

Here is a case that went the other way (they deemed it NOT to be a side extension). However see the footnote..

 

http://www.permitteddevelopment.org/Appeal-decision-106.php

 

March 2010 - Code a00106

 

Summary of Case (appeal allowed): 

The property is a semi-detached house within a conservation area. The property has an original single-storey rear projection on the side away from the adjoining semi number 5, such that the infill areas of the two semi-detached properties are in the middle. The application was for a proposed single storey conservatory to the side of the original single-storey rear projection, within this infill area. 

The key issue was whether the proposed extension would be contrary to Class A, part A.2(b), which states that “In the case of a dwellinghouse on article 1(5) land, development is not permitted by Class A if … the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse”. 

The Inspector stated the following: 

“The dwellinghouse, which is semi-detached, has an existing and original single storey rear extension which lines up with the existing and original side wall to the house, and these together form the side elevation of the original dwellinghouse facing the side elevation of No 7. The conservatory would be attached to the inner elevation of the rear extension, and would run away from the boundary with No 7 across the rear of the house towards the boundary with No 5, the other semi-detached part of the building. It would not project beyond the wall forming the side elevation of the original dwellinghouse, as the whole of the rear extension would remain between the conservatory and the side elevation. 

The Council stated that Class A does not specify which side elevation an extension should not extend beyond. However, it would not be right to view the inward facing side elevation of the rear extension as the side elevation beyond which the conservatory should not project, as that would restrict any extension to not exceeding the width of any original rear extension, which would also imply its demolition.  

It should be noted that the GPDO in Class A.2(b) does not refer to an extension beyond the rear wall of a wall forming the side elevation of the original dwellinghouse, but an extension beyond a wall forming the side elevation of the original dwellinghouse. The extension which is not permitted in Class A.2(b) can only be an extension towards No 7, beyond the wall forming the side elevation, and not beyond the rear of the original rear extension to No 6.

I consider that the conservatory would not therefore project beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse and would be permitted development. The appeal succeeds.”

 

Note: In my opinion, the above conclusion is questionable, because it is based upon an interpretation of “a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse” that is directly contrary to all five previous appeal decisions on the subject. 

 

[Temp]

Another appeal allowed where the rear projection of the dining room was only 0.3m.  

http://www.permitteddevelopment.org/Appeal-Decision-157.php

The return in the wall was about 0.3m. As a matter of fact and degree, I find that the nature, location and projection of this wall does not make it constitute a “wall forming a side elevation of the original dwelling”, but forms part of the ‘rear wall’ in the context of the above Orders. The restriction under clause A.2 therefore does not apply to the proposed conservatory”.

 

[DevilDamo]

14 hours ago, Gerhardt said:

Nope that is original as per drawings of when the house was built in 1949

But it isn’t original as you’ve stated the room was the subject of a garage conversion. The perimeter walls may have been original if that is what you meant?

 

Also, was it a co-incidence that house was constructed the year after the GPDO definition of ‘original’ ? Or did you mean the attached garage was there prior to 1949?

Edited December 22, 2021 by DevilDamo

[DevilDamo]

6 hours ago, Gerhardt said:

I have had two planning consultants on site and a number of architects before putting a design team together

Just a shame neither picked up on the issue the LPA refused the CoL application on…

[Gerhardt]

Baby steps.... but we now have three quarters of the back extension approved. As briefly touched on in a previous posts, this was ok to be more than half of the width of the house as we did not attach to the rear protrusion or "side wall" as it is defined by planning laws.

 

We have two more applications awaiting approval, one for the same scheme that got refused but with additional justification citing planning previous planning appeals and a second for a 45sqm garden room. 

If the scheme is implemented we will end up something looking like below, existing conservatory attached to the rear protrusion is marked in blue -

 

My understanding about the next steps is as follow, we will now submit a HH application trading the PD approved space and the conservatory to blend this all into one extension. We have already obtained planning for a 44% uplift on the first floor, how would the new application be assessed?

 

We are happy to give up PD rights for this class of works but it is probably also worth noting that we intend to do a balcony on the back extension roof(we are completely screened off from neighbors), so wouldn't want do that if a balcony application requires that specific class of PD rights we give up.

 

Any wisdom anyone can part with about a similar set up or previous experience would be greatly appreciated.

 

[DevilDamo]

Assume you’ve asked these questions to Michael, your architect?

[Gerhardt]

Yes I have, similar to how we initially spoke about the rear protrusion and it unfortunately did not go their way with their approach. So to gather any additional knowledge or experience of someone who has done something similar surely can do no harm.

[Gerhardt]

Updating this thread for anyone with a similar situation.