Adding a conservatory onto a rear extension - semi detached

[britishboy7]

We have a 1930's semi detached that was extended at the rear, full width about 15 years ago. The side joined to our neighbour is single story with a pitched roof, the side where we arent joined to anyone is 2 story.

We're considering a full width conservatory at the rear, but reading the '3m thats now 6m from original house permitted development' rule, as our current extension is 3.5m deep, does that mean we can only go out another 2.5m under PD? Or can we go out another 3-3.5m from the extension?

 

[Nakajo]

What does the wording say.

 

[tony1851]

If you build anything on to your existing 3.5m extension, it would not be permitted development and would need planning permission.

 

[Nakajo]

Why do you say that Tony?

 

[tony1851]

Why do you say that Tony?

1. As it's a semi, he's limited to a maximum 3m extension on the rear to be p.d.
2. Although you can go up to 6m on the rear of a semi using the Prior Notification scheme
(subject to no objections etc), that does not apply retrospectively and the 3.5m extension
counts towards that.
(It would have been possible under the court ruling in Hilton last year, but that has now been stopped
by the latest change in the p.d. rules which came in a few weeks ago).

 

[Nakajo]

As I read it, the clarification to the legislation simply confirmed the Hilton judgment.

As I understand it, the op can extend a further 2.5m under the neighbour consultation scheme - 15 years is a good long while, after all.

Either way, there's no harm submitting the 'application'. If neighbours complain or if the council disagree with my view, I'm sure they'll say so - although I'd be impressed if they were up to date on the whole Hilton thing.

 

[tony1851]

TBH Nak., I think it's the opposite. Hilton would allow leapfrog extensions, while to me the wording now seems clear that if a proposed extension was added to an existing extension, the whole extension would be treated as a new one.

 

[LukeB123]

I have seen a few applications approved under the prior notification process for what the OP is proposing.

The arguments is "well if I demolish the existing extension (the 15 years ago one), then I can rebuild it with the proposed extension exactly as it is now under the prior notification scheme"

It depends how to the letter the LPA is I guess, but that's not really at the heart of what the legislation was trying to get at (6m total extension)

 

[napoleondynamite]

Any extension would not be PD as the 'resultant structure' (i.e. the combined structure of both extensions) would be partially 2 storey, and would therefore be subject to restriction A.1(h):

(h) the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would have more than a single storey and—
(i) extend beyond the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse by more than 3 metres

The newly inserted restriction (ja) clarifies that this combined structure must be considered and must comply with limits (e) to (j).