What is Rear Elevation?

[Jonathan M]

Hi,  I've submitted a planning request for a lawful certificate to build a conservatory under permitted development to my local Council.  The conservatory will be built alongside an existing extension and will not exceed the width of the extension but will protrude beyond the rear elevation by 2.95m so within the limits.  However, as it is, in total, 4.7m from the rear wall of the extension it is being rejected as too long and I need to submit the next level of planning.  So I can extend up to 3m from the rear elevation of the main house but seemingly not from a recessed extension.  It is a semi-detached bungalow.  I don't understand the decision but at the point of conceding and just raising the next level request but wanted to check first.

 

Any advice and thanks in advance?

[andyscotland]

Which UK country are you in? - the planning rules are a little different.

 

In Scotland, in what I think is the current legislation, it says: "rear elevation” means the elevation of the original dwellinghouse that is opposite its principal elevation; https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2011/357/schedule/made

 

So to my untrained eye I think they've got that wrong. Assuming of course that the utility room is not on top of something (an attached garage?) that was part of the original footprint of the house when first built.

[ToughButterCup]

Welcome.

I suggest you read the decision notice really carefully . Look for the reasons given for rejection.

 

Maybe copy and paste  them here for us to be able to help more.

 

Ian

 

This document may help.

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

 

 

Edited October 25, 2022 by ToughButterCup

[Jonathan M]

This is for a property in Norfolk, England.

 

To be honest, it hasn't yet been fully rejected but the Council are stating that they cannot issue the certificate as the size is too long and I need to go to the next level of planning (more time and money).  The latest comment was: "The measurement on the drawing that measures 4.7m in length,  this measurement needs to be 3m to apply for an LDP."

 

Thank you Ian for that link.  I've have just found this which I believe definitively answers my question:

 

 

[Ferdinand]

I think you are answered on the PD question.

 

My comment: make sure that your roof form is maintainable, that you can get where you need to get, that the form you chooses takes leaves and muck towards the outside not the inside, and that there are no inaccessible corners that catch material.

[andyscotland]

So in that case it seems the key question is whether the stepped line of the extension follows a line of some pre-existing part of the original house, or whether the extension was on "new" land.

 

"Original house" is I'm fairly sure a defined term in planning law, it means as first built or as it was at some specific date in the past (1948?) if the house is older than that.

[Jonathan M]

Thanks for your comments and support.  The house was build c 1950 and is an ex-council house.  The extension is very old too so will have been added at some stage not long after I would think so presume the council is therefore deeming it part of the original house.

[Ferdinand]

4 minutes ago, Jonathan M said:

Thanks for your comments and support.  The house was build c 1950 and is an ex-council house.  The extension is very old too so will have been added at some stage not long after I would think so presume the council is therefore deeming it part of the original house.

 

Just a check - are you sure it is an extension? The check would be that there are others that are identical, but without the extension.

 

Back then a looks-like-an-extension utility / loo on the side would not be unusual.

 

I suspect that it may not make much difference, though.

 

F

[andyscotland]

9 minutes ago, Jonathan M said:

so presume the council is therefore deeming it part of the original house.

 

I am not by any means an expert in this area. But I am pretty sure they can't just decide to "deem it part of the original house" unless it meets the specific legal definition of that term.

 

Unless as Ferdinand says it's actually an original part of the house that just looks like an extension. It is probably worth checking the history of your property before taking this any further (whether pushing back on PD or applying for planning).

 

Did the drawings you sent in for the lawful cert application make clear what you consider to be the original house? It is possible the planner has missed that detail.

[Ferdinand]

38 minutes ago, andyscotland said:

Unless as Ferdinand says it's actually an original part of the house that just looks like an extension. It is probably worth checking the history of your property before taking this any further (whether pushing back on PD or applying for planning).

 

Though iirc if it is not part of the original house, you are perhaps more likely to need PP - as I think extensions that poke out both to the side and behind (ie cover the bit that is on the diagonal from the corner) require PP.

 

@DevilDamo may know on that.

 

From what we have on this thread, I think your way to avoid the paperwork costs is to put it behind the main section of your house at dimensions of say 4.7ma cross by 3m front to back.

 

But the paperwork costs may be small enough just to swallow.

[Jonathan M]

Thank you for all your advice and comments.  All the similar houses have the same 'extension' so perhaps it is part of the original build.  It looked from the door frame into the extension that the frame was originally from an external doorway so we surmised the extended part was probably added at a later date to all the houses.  Perhaps as Ferdinand says, when outside Loos were done away and the extra bit was added.  Being ex-council it is not even registered with the land registry (another story) so I cannot track the history of the property.

 

So I've bitten the bullet and gone back to the council to ask what it would take to move this forward.  You have pointed me down the right road to understanding why they would not accept my request.

 

Cheers

[Ferdinand]

On 25/10/2022 at 12:56, Jonathan M said:

Thank you for all your advice and comments.  All the similar houses have the same 'extension' so perhaps it is part of the original build.  It looked from the door frame into the extension that the frame was originally from an external doorway so we surmised the extended part was probably added at a later date to all the houses.  Perhaps as Ferdinand says, when outside Loos were done away and the extra bit was added.  Being ex-council it is not even registered with the land registry (another story) so I cannot track the history of the property.

 

So I've bitten the bullet and gone back to the council to ask what it would take to move this forward.  You have pointed me down the right road to understanding why they would not accept my request.

 

Cheers

 

You  could try putting in an FOI to your Council for records, and that might smoke something out.

 

Or go and visit the Planning File. (WIth adanced earnign and an appointment).

[DevilDamo]

Sorry @Ferdinand, haven’t long seen this.

 

Under PD, original is how the house stood on 1st July 1948.

 

@Jonathan M If that bit on the side is original/has been there since 1948, then what you are proposing would require Planning because one part exceeds 4m deep. If that bit on the side is not original/built after 1948, then what you’re proposing what constitute PD. The latter is referred to on Page 20 of the Technical Guidance.

Edited November 22, 2022 by DevilDamo