6 meter single storey kitchen extension please help

[Emmey]

Hi, I have just completed on a house and thought I had researched the PD rights thoroughly I contacted the neighbours who had no objections.
The council were notified and the neighbours under the scheme and no objections were raised however the council have refused my PD and I am not sure why ( the officer is off sick )
It's a 1930's semi the ground floor consists of a front room dining room and a small kitchen. There is then a door to outside and a meter wide toilet I would say this is an outbuilding as you have to go outside to access it.
The toilet and and a very shoddy lean too are going to be knocked down and a straightforward 6 meters single storey flat roof extension put up. Can anyone please explain why the PD would be refused and would this toilet always have been there or added later. Is there anything I could do to get this passed.
Any help would be greatly appreciated
Jo

 

[maltaron]

I can't help on the PD (best ask in "building regs and planning section") issue but on a 1930's semi you would have had an outside toilet and coal house. Often the coal house will have been used as a boiler room by now.

 

[conny]

Unless its a listed building then the only people who could answer your question is the planning department themselves.

It doesn't matter that the officer dealing with it is off sick, what if he were to be retired on health grounds before his return to work?

Your case will be in a file and any officer will have access to it in such cases as this. Phone them and ask to be put in touch with a supervisor in the office if someone says they can't access the file.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

OP, you have provided far too little information for us to be able to answer, when you submit a PD application it is important that you demonstrate to the planners that the relevant criteria that needs to be met in order that it be considered Permitted Development is either written down or indicated on a drawing ie state or draw the height etc etc. Was this done? If you have provided as little information in your application as you have to us then it is bound to be refused. Furthermore if it has been refused then you should be able to track down the application online and you can read the officers report. You should have been talking with the officer throughout the application period to ensure it went through or made any changes as may have been required.

 

[tony1851]

OP, as above, really.
It is no use just stating that your extension is 6m out - you need to show that it is still permitted development in that it would comply with the other criteria, ie max. height 4m, eaves height 3m, materials to be similar etc.

If these details are not with the Notification, the LPA can refuse it on the grounds of insufficient information. It could be that your scheme is technically p.d., but you need to show that to the council.

Start again, but check with the officer first to find out what went wrong.

 

[Emmey]

Sorry, it is 6 meters deep 2.6 meters high with a flat roof
Not sure of Eve's.
It will be rendered to fit in with the existing house.
With bi fold doors to rear.
I am also renovating the existing house and renewing electrics heating roof windows. I am also having a loft conversion.
It falls within all the PD on the planning portal.
The council were sent the plans. And neighbours were sent letters.
But because there is a very small outbuilding toilet / old coal shed attached to the outside wall on the right hand side planning are saying that this makes my rear extension a side extension and therefore I can only build less than half the width of the existing house. All the other houses on the road have full width rear extensions all be it 3 meters deep.
All the houses would have had an identical outside loo.
Anyway thank you for the responses so far.
I appreciatec your time just disappointed that everything always has to be so stressful.
Jo

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Gah! Rookie error! Thanks for letting us know.

 

[tony1851]

because there is a very small outbuilding toilet / old coal shed attached to the outside wall on the right hand side planning are saying that this makes my rear extension a side extension and therefore I can only build less than half the width of the existing house. All the other houses on the road have full width rear extensions all be it 3 meters deep.
All the houses would have had an identical outside loo.

That is ridiculous; on that basis, very few houses could have full-width rear extensions.

If all the other houses on the row have 3m deep full-width extensions, then they will have been regarded as permitted development.
There is then no difference between those and your scheme in terms of permitted development rights.

The other neighbours would have had to knock their outhouses down to do the full-width extensions as p.d., so then ask the planning officer why you can't do exactly the same thing.
Why not appeal?

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Tony if you build onto the side of something it needs to meet the criteria of a side extension. It doesn't matter that you're knocking it down or that you have to go outside to access it. An outbuilding is not attached to a dwelling. You also don't know the history of any of his neighbouring extensions whether they had PP or were done under Pd or have no PP or what.

If he had been your client would your professional advice have been to assume the old bog could be disregarded and only the rules for rear extension be applied?

 

[tony1851]

If he had been your client would your professional advice have been to assume the old bog could be disregarded and only the rules for rear extension be applied?

To be honest, Freddy, I would.

In the old days when p.d was based on volume, we'd knock the bog down and add that to the volume of the new-build.

I won't get on to a general criticism of LPA's interpretation of the p.d. rules because we'd be here all night. However, I do feel that the side-extension rule was very badly worded. My gut feeling was that it was intended solely to prevent out-of-scale extensions on the sides of houses where they would be visible from the street. But as usual, LPA's take the widest-possible interpretation just to keep the application fees rolling in.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

I agree the rules are poor and would add that a 'one size fits all' solution to PD clearly punishes some. However the interpretation of the rules is clearly defined in the Technical Guidance for all to see and there's even some pretty pictures in it to look at.

And yes I would agree that any rules that apparently require further 'technical guidance' to be written just to explain them were clearly Fubar to start with.

 

[Emmey]

Hi, he is a she.
I have asked the neighbours either side of me and opposite, they all knocked down the old outside loo and put up full width 3 meter extensions. Under PD
I think because I want to take advantage of the new 6 meter rule and have to apply the neighbour consent scheme I have put myself into the spotlight.
And have to apply for planning permission!!!
Another 8 weeks and more costs involved.
In my mind a side extention projects to the side of the boundary wall.
Do you think planning will object again when I go for full permission or are different cryterias used.
Jo

 

[tony1851]

Do you think planning will object again when I go for full permission or are different cryterias used.
Jo

Considering the stance your planning officer has taken, I would almost bet my house and pension fund that your application for a 6m extension would be turned down.

Prepare to write off £172 plus the cost of drawings, and a further 8 weeks of your life.

 

[Emmey]

The technical guidance rules under class A extensions are complicated.
I am not a stupid person.
Even with the pretty pictures, I find them to be misleading.
Jo

 

[tony1851]

Even with the pretty pictures, I find them to be misleading.
Jo

They are, and they got it hopelessly wrong recently. Last year, there was a court case concerning DCLG's interpretation on the set-back of rear dormers.

A court ruled that the advice given in the Technical Guidance was wrong in law. The DCLG had to go back and alter the original statutory instrument to give effect to their interpretation.

If they can't interpret their own rules, what chance has jo(e) public??