Rear extension under PD part 2

[Cameron78]

hi,

We hope to add a rear kitchen extension (purple outline) to this 1930s property in a green belt and AONB area. We will have to use PD as the house has already extended, under planning, back in the 70s (green outline) and is at the 50% volume of original mark. Annoyingly the side extension goes past the original house by about 2m. This means if we attach the rear extension to the side extension it is classed a wraparound and we won’t be able to go full width of the original house (black outline).

 

Q is to any experts out there, if I leave a small gap between the rear extension and the side can I go nearly full width rear extension? Or would we need to demolish part of the side extension back to the original rear building line?

[JamesP]

Under permitted development I think your proposed rear extension can cover no more than 50% of the original dwelling.

Have a read of this.

 

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

[jayc89]

11 minutes ago, JamesP said:

Under permitted development I think your proposed rear extension can cover no more than 50% of the original dwelling.

Have a read of this.

 

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

 

Original dwelling also has an interesting definition. It's basically the footprint of the house as of 1948, assuming it was built before then. So in some cases you could include extensions within the calculated "original" footprint.

[Cameron78]

Thanks James, I think the 50% rule applies to the curtilage of the house rather than the original dwelling. This won’t impact my proposed rear extension.

[Cameron78]

12 hours ago, jayc89 said:

 

Original dwelling also has an interesting definition. It's basically the footprint of the house as of 1948, assuming it was built before then. So in some cases you could include extensions within the calculated "original" footprint.

Thanks Jay, yes the original house was built 1930’s but the previous extensions were in the 70’s so are not defined as the original house. Hence why we won’t be able to go planning application route.  

[Temp]

13 hours ago, Cameron78 said:

 

hi,

We hope to add a rear kitchen extension (purple outline) to this 1930s property in a green belt and AONB area. We will have to use PD as the house has already extended, under planning, back in the 70s (green outline) and is at the 50% volume of original mark. Annoyingly the side extension goes past the original house by about 2m. This means if we attach the rear extension to the side extension it is classed a wraparound and we won’t be able to go full width of the original house (black outline).

 

Q is to any experts out there, if I leave a small gap between the rear extension and the side can I go nearly full width rear extension? Or would we need to demolish part of the side extension back to the original rear building line?

 

I think you are correct. The half width of original house restriction only applies when it extends beyond a side wall. Which it would do if it joins the previous extension. So leaving a gap should be OK. However I recall reading that planners have argued over the size the gap needs to be. 

 

It might be worth applying for a certificate of lawfulness to establish that an extension with gap would be Permitted Development and make a planning application for full width extehsion without a gap at the same time. If they reject it appeal on the grounds that overall the difference is insignificant.

Edited April 5, 2022 by Temp

[Cameron78]

7 hours ago, Temp said:

 

I think you are correct. The half width of original house restriction only applies when it extends beyond a side wall. Which it would do if it joins the previous extension. So leaving a gap should be OK. However I recall reading that planners have argued over the size the gap needs to be. 

 

It might be worth applying for a certificate of lawfulness to establish that an extension with gap would be Permitted Development and make a planning application for full width extehsion without a gap at the same time. If they reject it appeal on the grounds that overall the difference is insignificant.

Thanks Temp, good idea on trying the planning app alongside the CLD.