Rear extension with existing small protrusion

[NoPaddle]

We would like to build a two-storey rear extension under our permitted development rights. However, I am concerned by an existing (presumed original) portion that juts-out at the back of our house.

 

The above image shows the original property looking at the rear elevation.

 

 

 

 

 

The plan is shown above. The rear elevation is on the left. (The smaller building in the lower left corner is a wooden shed built around 1970)

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is what I would like to do.

 

And the proposed plan. (The new outbuilding is single storey.)

 

We are within the curtilage and boundary distance requirements. However, my concern is that the small protrusion at the back of the original house (WC and pantry outlined in red) means that the proposed extension to the main house would have to meet both rear and side extension requirements when considering permitted development rights, [Permitted development rights for householders, pg 23].

 

This means my proposed extension is too wide. (5.1m allowable half-width, 5.4m extension width). More importantly, side extensions can only be single storey under permitted development.  I can see that this is not the first time that this problem has been discussed and I have a few questions:

 

1. Does this particular arrangement mean that I am missing something and that I can actually build as proposed under PD rights?

2. Are there any small changes that I can make that mean I can build under PD rights?

3. I presume the offending lump on the back is original, but I don't actually know. Could I argue that it might have been an extension?

4. If I have to go through planning, is there anything to indicate that it will, or won't get through?

 

 

 

[Nickfromwales]

Whatever has been added to the very original house is another bite out of your PD.

 

Why aren’t you just simplifying this by going for a full planning application? If they refuse at least you’ll know why and what’s not ‘acceptable’, but nothing stands out as offensive or domineering so I doubt you’ll have issues; unless the planning officer was bullied at school.

[Spinny]

Not clear where your boundaries are with neighbours etc from those drawings.

Personally I find all this 'permitted development' stuff a bit unnecessary. If you are going to build something reasonable with due consideration for your neighbours and the local context and setting, why be trying to use permitted development ? The cost and timeline involved with getting planning permission is not excessive compared with the costs, timelines amd risks involved with a building project. I don't think LA planning are going to have spurious objections. You don't say whether you are engaging with neighbours regarding your plans - which is the recommended approach by all good architects and the planning office. Going through planning permission will at least ensure immediate neighbours are informed even if you want to shaft them. You never know, LA planning might have something helpful to say about your plans, and having planning permission can only be a positive when it comes to the sales value of the property, and dealing with neighbour relations during the build itself.

 

[torre]

This is definitely not permitted development, not just for the reasons you've mentioned but because you're changing a relatively low profile hipped roof at the rear into a much more prominent gable end.

 

What's at the bottom of your garden? If there's no neighbour then you probably stand a good chance of getting planning permission but if there is then you may need to compromise a fair bit (lose the gable end or at least the window in it for example.

[NoPaddle]

Thanks for the comments.

 

@Nickfromwales and @Spinny, nearly all of what we wanted to do fitted within permitted development and the reduced form-filling and increased flexibility is appealing. I intended to apply for planning separately for two aspects that where clearly not within permitted development. (The driveway and the front porch).

 

However, it now looks like it might make more sense to get the whole thing covered under a planning application.

 

There is only one neighbour affected and we are planning to speak to them. Their house is on the north side of ours, and their garden wraps around the rear of our garden. (There are trees between our two gardens, but I remember reading somewhere that planners don't consider that.) I have shown the entirety of the boundary to the property below.

 

 

 

@torre I understand that planners would review the impact of the attic windows on the new gable end on the neighbours, but how is the new gable and its rear facing windows outside permitted development? Is there something within the roof alterations section that I have missed?

 

How do planners approach the rear-facing windows situation? Many houses have upper floor rear windows that look straight over the neighbour's garden and into their rear windows? We already have rear windows and the extra attic windows on the gable end will have little impact on the neighbour's privacy.

 

All input is appreciated, I've learnt a lot already.

 

[Nestor]

Why build and restrict yourself to 3 metres depth with PD?

Need to go full plans.

 

[kandgmitchell]

Go full plans, at present the rear extension is greater than 3.0m deep and more than one storey as well as being a side extension to the existing rear single storey part and is more than half the width of the original house. I'd rather not risk building that without a certificate of lawfulness to confirm it's PD and if you're doing that (and I think you would fail) you might as well go for full planning.

[NoPaddle]

Full planning it is. Prepare yourselves for more questions. 🤠