Jump to content


Permitted Development-Infill extension


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 nickam

nickam

    Regular Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 333 posts
  • LocationHerts, England

Posted 08 April 2011 - 09:53 AM

A sitation has been brought to my attention where an infill extension has been refused a Cerificate of Lawfull Development and would like to ask if anyone here has had a similar experience.The property in question is a cottage that was built back in 1908. The original property was extended, I think, around 1985. The extension at that time consisted of a link extension and a new rear extension of the same width as the original on two storeys to provide a new kitchen on the ground floor and two new bedrooms on the first floor. This extension made the building of a 'U' shape. It is intended to build a ground floor extension within this 'U' to fill in the 'U'. The problem is that the width of the 'U' part is 3.016metres and as this in effect adds this amount to what was the original rear wall, then the Planners have deemed it needs Planning approval. All for the sake of 16mm. It seems totally out of the spirit of the Regs that this is deemed a rear extension as there is already a two storey extension to the rear of this albeit not part of the original. I will try to add some drawings to illustrate and would ask if anyone elsehas had a similar experience ?
Attached File  Rev E.jpg   62.53K   18 downloads
Attached File  Rev E-2.jpg   14.09K   17 downloads
Nick Ambrose
Architectural Technician
http://www.building-plans.org

#2 temp

temp

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 8,359 posts

Posted 08 April 2011 - 12:42 PM

Presumably this is a semi because it's 4m for a detached house.

The rules are clear in that it's the rear of the original house not the extended house that matter. There is another more typical example here...

http://www.diynot.co...c.php?p=1414597

I don't believe the planners have any discression once you told them in writing it's over 3m. The planning office could find itself in court subject to judicial review if a neighbour decided to make an issue of it. Had you put 3m on the diagram I doubt they would have checked.

I doubt planning permission would be refused but if worried about that perhaps you could render the walls and remeasure?

#3 joiner

joiner

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 6,967 posts
  • LocationBridgnorth, Shropshire

Posted 08 April 2011 - 01:50 PM

"perhaps you could render the walls and remeasure?"

Would that not open up a whole new can of worms?

#4 nickam

nickam

    Regular Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 333 posts
  • LocationHerts, England

Posted 08 April 2011 - 01:58 PM

I was thinking of putting in an internal stud wall 16mm from the existing and saying that is the external wall and then just putting a cover strip over the 16mm gap. The rendering was also suggested. I would put it in for Planning but the client doesn't seem to want that. It is a semi-detached.

Edited by nickam, 08 April 2011 - 01:59 PM.

Nick Ambrose
Architectural Technician
http://www.building-plans.org

#5 temp

temp

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 8,359 posts

Posted 08 April 2011 - 03:14 PM

The approach you propose should work. The 3m excludes eaves and guttering....


http://www.permitted...cision-100.html

The Inspector stated the following:

““The 2008 amendments to GPDO Part 1 adopted an impact-based approach. I believe that the 3 metre maximum projection from the rear wall of the dwellinghouse mentioned in the amendments was intended to refer to the main body of the extension to be permitted and that it is not intended that the projection of the eaves and gutters should normally be taken into account. In most circumstances, the projection of the eaves and gutters would make little, if any, significant difference to the impact of the extension under consideration. In the appeal case, there is nothing out of the ordinary about the eaves and gutters that suggest to me that they have any effect on the impact of the proposed extension. I therefore conclude, as a matter of fact and degree, that the projection due to the eaves and gutters of the proposed extension is de minimis and should be disregarded in assessing the projection of the proposed extension from the rear wall of the existing dwellinghouse. I accept that the eaves and gutters here project more than was the case in the Halifax example referred to by the Council (Ref: APP/A4710/X/09/2103056) but not to the extent that I believe that a different approach to that adopted by the Inspector in that case is warranted.”

You could also ask them to reconsider the CLD or you will appeal the refusal on the grounds that the 16mm excess is "de minimis" as above.

Edited by temp, 08 April 2011 - 03:15 PM.