House Extension (Single Storey) - Do you need Planning Permission? UK Permitted Development 

😂

That would indicate that the council are corrupt and we ALL know the council are legal, above board and do everything by the book; just like the police and politicians

That's very cynical 😂

@@TheArchitectRU-vid I spent 7 year's working for the corrupt, no very corrupt Caerphilly borough council for my sins 🙈. People on the outside know it's going on but to see how absolutely corrupt a council is from the inside 🤯🤯🤯🤯. Vile masonic scum sorry to be so blunt 🙏🏻, one rule for them and their family, another for the poor hardworking man/woman who just want to improve their living quality and have a better life. All councils like goverment are sickeningly corrupt. Love, peace and good energy my friend ❤️🙏🏻

Never had a free mason put in a good word, but had many neighbours who were councillors make it their mission in life to refuse planning

Glad you liked it!

Glad it was helpful!

glad to hear it 👍

It sounds like you have been treated quite harshly there from your description. Demolition of PART of a building is as you say an alteration, whereas total demolition and rebuild would not be. Both would probably be classed as development but the definition of what constitutes 'development' is a much debated legal argument. The 'original house 'as of 1948 is still the 'original house' against which PD is measured, even if parts of it have been altered or removed since. You would then obviously need to rely on documentary evidence of what was there previously. What made the second planning officer deem the extension as non-PD?

@@TheArchitectRU-vid The Planning Officer doesn't quote any particular PD rule, guidance, or case law upon which his determination is based. Here's a direct quote of the relevant section from the correspondence I received: "I am aware that under the Pre-Application Enquiry XX/2019/XXXX you were advised by one of the Planning Officer’s from the department that the part of the extension which fell on the same footprint of the former extension to the rear would still constitute part of the original dwellinghouse as it was present prior to 1948. Therefore, you were advised only the 1.38 meters that extends beyond the side elevation of the dwellinghouse would constitute new development and as this part of the extension does not amount to half the width of the original dwellinghouse the current extension would not require planning permission. However, in my opinion this advice is incorrect, at the point the old extension was demolished, anything built after this point would constitute new development and would consequently have to satisfy the current Regulations once again. I can advise that my Senior Officer has reaffirmed my conclusion on this account." I'm unsure where it goes from here. As the planning office doesn't intend to pursue enforcement action, what's the next step? Do I just wait for the 4 year rule to gain immunity from action? Do I need to argue my case to try to get them to concede that it is legal development? Is there a formal process for disputing a PO's determination? If successful, I guess it'd then be wise to apply for a certificate of lawfulness to prevent any future issues? If unsuccessful, is it remedial work? (no chance!), retrospective planning application? (expensive!), or leave it as unauthorized? (negatively impact the property value?) Thanks for your response btw; wasn't expecting it! My initial post was really just a venting of my frustrations with the process as I'd experienced it =D

That's great. remember that the certificate of lawfulness can confirm this and give you extra piece of mind.

Thank you 👍

Hi there, please see my latest video for this!

Glad it was helpful!

Awesome, thank you!

Great suggestion!

In a mid-terrace, the extension you are referring to would solely be a 'rear' extension, so none of the 'side' extension rules would apply. If you have a stepped rear elevation, the limits apply to each of the sections of the rear elevation individually. For example you could extend into the side return 3m/6m from the (main) rear wall of the house, regardless of what you are adding to the end of the outrigger.

Sounds like a video on this house-type would be useful!

useful, thank you. Check your house deeds and planning permission given to the developers. On many new-build estates garage conversions are specifically not allowed as the garages formed part of the initial parking strategy.

@@TheArchitectRU-vidwhat are the standard rules regarding extending above an attached garage?

Thanks for watching. Yes on a corner plot, the side would also be classed as a 'principal elevation' as well as the front. In terms of timber frame, the same principles apply for planning. I will be producing more technical videos soon!

You can register on the Planning Portal to submit an application online to your Local Planning Authority. If you are confident it is PD then a 'Certificate of Lawful Development for a proposed use' is what you should submit. You can select the application type from the drop down list.

No, it's 3m from the back of the house. The width can vary.

no, you can go right up to your neighbours house under the Party Wall Act, but be aware that attaching your properties may affect your house values and marketability in the future.

That's very cynical! 😂

It is possible to have 2 'principal elevations' if on a corner plot. I would try and seek a written agreement about what they consider to be the principal elevation(s) and then make sure you obtain a 'Certificate of Lawfulness for a Proposed Development' from the Local Authority to be sure.

Hi there usually the heights are measured against external ground level.

They are entitle to use the wall and build up to it, but the neighbour would have the right to cut off any overhanging feature.

Hi there. Ys, you should be able to construct an outbuilding subject to certain rules about its height etc. Its the subject of my next video coming in the next week so stay tuned

You're welcome 😊

Hi. The side and rear extensions would be PD but not the infill. Check out the 'householder technical guidance' which goes into some detail on this exact situation.

I presume you had permission for the original wraparound extension. Yes, you can still extend up to your PD limit

Although it seems very minor the addition of masonry probably would technically result in a 'material alteration' to the external appearance of the building. The argument is really then about where the principal elevation sits and you would probably say that the bay currently sits in front of the principal elevation. In that case it fails the test for PD extensions and also for PD porches as it does not contain an entrance door. It's not likely to be contentious so my advice would just be to apply for permission.

No, a gap isn't necessary and is exactly why the Party Wall Act was introduced - so that you can build on the boundary and the neighbour is afforded the benefit of using the wall also.

Hi there - thanks for the support! Reference is made within the technical guidance about 'the original ground level' but this can be hard to establish, and hence it is a good idea to obtain the certificate of lawfulness or planning permission. I'd say that if the step down in height was on the boundary (i.e. the fence has retaining gravel-boards or is on top of a retaining wall), a 3m extension on your side which is 3.7m on their side, would not be compliant - the 3.7m height facing them may be judged to cause an amenity issue. The extension can be built up to the boundary under the party wall act provisions, but any encroachment (e.g. gutters, overhangs or even footings) could legally be cut back by the neighbour in the future.

Yes, perfectly possible to gain permission for larger extensions on big plots, but it then becomes mostly about the effects on your neighbours (their 'amenity').

Thanks for sharing!

Yes, take a look at my channel 👍

I have a similar situation. I'm detached with a drive to the side of the property and a garage behind that, around 1m behind the line of the house's rear wall. I would love to add an extention to the rear of my property which joins to the side of the garage. Not sure if this qualififies as a wraparound. I doubt it does as the garage is an existing building but I'd love to be sure.

It really depends on the age of the extension whether it can be classed as part of the 'original house' - was it built before or after 1948? If after then it sounds like you would need to go down the neighbour consultation route.

It can be attached under the rights afforded to you in the Party wall Act, if their wall is on the boundary. You may have to pay a charge for the benefit though!

....?

The 'side' part could not actually extend to be to at the side of the house - it would have to still be behind the line of the rear elevation of the original house to be classed as a 'rear' extension.

Yes, this is a 'rule of thumb' used by Local Authorities to avoid right of light disputes. Right of light however is a civil matter not planning law.

@@TheArchitectRU-vid This is what I thought. However after getting a right of light assessment that came back with insignificant effect on light, the council have stated that it also covers "residential visual amenity" and can be used to avoid a development being "overbearing". However, there is apparently no objective measurement or test for if something is overbearing. A residential visual amenity assessment specialist has confirmed that it's basically a matter of opinion and saying you feel it is overbearing can be enough, and there's no measurement that can be done to objectively prove it isn't.

I'm not sure why it is the case but this scenario is covered on p26 of the technical guidance, which you may find useful: assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5d77afc8e5274a27cdb2c9e9/190910_Tech_Guide_for_publishing.pdf

Depends whether this is on the side or rear of the house.

In my experience the LPA often don't understand the regs. It's up to you to ensure you're compliant. They can say you're fine and then turn around and screw you over. You may be allowed 3.5m projection with prior approval if that doesn't go higher or longer than a 45° line from the centre of the nearest window of a habitable space on the neighbouring property. I'd recommend you apply to the LPA for a Certificate of Lawfulness before starting the project, to cover yourself. It's also basically the Prior Approval process where you tell the LPA about your proposed development and they check with the neighbours if there are any objections before approving.

Hello, thanks for the reply. We are not going to do a rear extension now and just have a smaller kitchen diner and a porch at the front of the house. We used a civil engineer and he has done our drawings for permitted development for our garage conversion and downstairs bedroom. He has got our lawful development agreed with the council. The porch had to be no more than 3m sq I think. Next we have to get Building Control approval so with everything in it will be around £3000 for the architect (Civil Engineer in our case) and £1000 odd for building control fees. @@Leo99929

You don't have to, but it will give you piece of mind and will make the sale of your property much more robust.

unfortunately no, not even if you neighbours are miles away!

It depends... if it falls within the rules for PD extensions then you don't need planning permission whether there is a garage there or not. However you cannot use the old garage's volume or area if the extension wouldn't usually fall within PD (although the presence of a structure there already would probably help your planning application). For example, you could not demolish a garage in front of your house's principal elevation and put an extension there without planning permission.

Thanks for the comment. Probably non-contentious if as you describe, but not under PD - planning permission would be required.

Hi there. no, the first extension will have used up your PD rights so that any extra needs planning permission. PD rights do not 'reset'.

Yes, its possible, but will need permission and the highways department would have a say with regard to whether it affects visibility along the road etc. The planners may also feel strongly about the 'established' building line' - if the addition would spoil the character of the street.

'Right of Light' is a civil matter so a claim or legal action could be brought regardless of whether the extension has planning permission etc. Having said that, the PD rules are as they are because an extension within PD size limits would be very unlikely to cause great loss of light.