Adding on to the Rear of an Existing Developmet

[freddiemercurystwin]

I have a PJ (maybe), the client has a detached house, he added a garage to the side that runs from the front elevation wall to about 2/3 back leaving a recess at the rear, about 30 years ago. He cannot recall whether he got PP for this or not. First question is what were the PD rules back in around 1982? Would he have needed PP for this or not? Not in CA or AONB or other oddity, full PD rights retained in property.

Ordinarily I would have just confirmed this with the duty officer however this LA will not deal with agents over the phone only via email with its inevitable 21 days response time. They will deal with homeowners however, and I suspect I shall be making such a call in the next day or so if you get my drift!

In addition to converting the garage, he wants to add a rear extension on to the back of this garage to fill in the recess (in fact as the garage was built after 1948 this new extension would be classed as a side extension under PD rules I believe). This meets the criteria for side extensions so no problems there. It may be that the garage and extension also receives a pitched roof, again meeting the height criteria for PD.

Now, supposing the original garage did require PP and he did not apply for it at the time (even though he is well exempt from prosecution by now). Would converting it and building on to the rear of this illegal development and then adding a pitched roof on top be permitted or not, in terms of PD? as he would be adding to an illegal development? If you get my drift!

I shall be pursuing this with the LA of course but I would appreciate some of the regulars thoughts in the meantime.

 

[tony1851]

I think that in 1982, the PD volumes were 50 for a detached and 40 otherwise (they later became 70 and 50 respectively, until 2008 of course).

Assuming the garage is < one-half the width of the house and the extension does not go back more than 4m beyond the rear wall etc etc, I cannot see there being a problem.

Presumably, the enlargement to the rear of the garage would be class A and the roofing over of the garage would be class B ('addition or alteration to roof'). Presumably you are satisfied that the extension itselt is PD, and if the roof of the garage and extension combined is less than 50 c.m., why should there be a problem?.

If the whole scheme you are describing (ie the garage and rear extension) would now be PD if bullt from scratcb, I can't see why the fact that the original garage did not get pp should affect his PD rights now.

 

[^woody^]

Permitted development can only be carried out to the original house or how it was on 1/7/48

I don't think that PD can be used or apply to, any extension/alteration where PP was either applied for, or which should should have been applied for, or which was built under any previous PD regime

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Permitted development can only be carried out to the original house or how it was on 1/7/48

I don't think that PD can be used or apply to, any extension/alteration where PP was either applied for, or which should should have been applied for, or which was built under any previous PD regime

Sorry ^woody^ I might be being thick here, to clarify the garage was added in approx 1982 so well after 1948. If the garage was added under PD rules that applied in 1982 then that's one thing. So adding an extension on the back of it (or to the side of the original house side wall) will be PD now will it not?

What I really wanted clarity on was would adding the garage in 1982 have been Pd or not? And can I add to it under today's PD rules?

For further clarity, if it helps, if you built the garage today it would be PD and considered to be a side extension. If you then added on a bit at the back (which is the works I am proposing now) this would also be PD.

 

[tony1851]

<Woody> might well be righton a technicality but in practice, would this matter? If you took the whole lot down (effectively putting the house in the condition it was in 1948), and built a new structure equivalent to the sum total of what you are proposing, that would be PD.
In that case, the LPA could not take enforcement action. On what grounds could they then take action if you merely extended an existing extension, which had the same end result?
The whole basis of the revision of the GPDO back in 2008 was to change the criterion for PD from volume to ' impact'. Your 'extended extension' would have no greater impact than a completely new one of the same size.
I might be missing somthing but I can't see it matters whether or not the 1980's garage had, or needed, or didn't need, planning permission.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Hmm, I like your perspective, I've realised that myself of course but I'd like to have a definitive answer! Thanks for the responses chaps, keep 'em coming!

 

[tony1851]

So far as I can remember, the 50/70 cub. m. volume limits came in in the late 1980s. SI 1988/1813 refers to these (presumably new) limits in schedule 2.
Type in www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1988/1813 for the document. Schedule 7 of this lists revoked SIs (one of which will presumably have the previous pd limits) but unfortunately the above site does not have copies of these.
From my own experience; I started doing plans for domestics in the mid-1970s (that dates me!) and I seem to remember the figures 40 for semi/terrace and 50 for detached. I suspect your pd limit in 1982 would have been 50, but that's as far as I can go.
Good luck with your quest.

 

[^woody^]

The concept is that one can't keep adding and adding under PD.

The current regime mentions original building etc, but also the various elevations ... and goes on to define what the elevations are - eg the original sides of the main house

So any extension whether under PD, formal permission or unauthorised, is still an extension to the original, and so cant be used as a basis for further development under PD

If you did the proposed work under PD, and then say, tried to get a LDC, then the planners would assess whether this was in fact PD, and it would seem that it could not be

It seems that the fact that some work may have been PD in the 80's, or may be unauthorised is a red-herring. You would have to go back the the basics of "what is the original building and main elevation" to determine what is PD now.

The infill bit may well be PD if it fits the criteria from the main elevation, but the roof alteration to the garage addition, and any further extension of that would seem to require formal permission

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Well, what I am saying is that if the house was today a standalone detached dwelling with no adjoined garage you could add an extension to the side the full depth of the property and less than half the width and within the height limits: that would all be PD. This house will end up as that.

I am not suggesting that anything be done to the property that would be outside of PD as you could build the garage as it is built now and the extra bit that the homeowner would like on the back all under PD.

If adding a pitched roof takes it beyond the limits of PD then yes of course PP will be required.

If feel a simple diagram coming on!

 

[^woody^]

I get your drift now

So, the whole lot if built today would be PD, but for the inconvenient fact that part of it is already there?

And if this previous extension was demolished, it could be rebuilt to the existing footprint and also extended as a whole new scheme under PD?

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

I get your drift now

So, the whole lot if built today would be PD, but for the inconvenient fact that part of it is already there?

And if this previous extension was demolished, it could be rebuilt to the existing footprint and also extended as a whole new scheme under PD?

Exactly that!

But my original query was that if the garage needed PP when it was built (if it even needed it?) but was not applied for could I lawfully add onto it? (I have no idea what the PD rules were back then (I was 10 ) so was hoping someone may recall) Would it remain an illegal development? Even though if built today the whole lot would be PD.

 

[^woody^]

Unauthorised development never become lawful.

The time limits for enforcement action do not make it lawful development either, but for all intents it becomes accepted, if not authorised

So perhaps the way to regularise it would be if a LDC was granted on the principle of established use?

Its a rather specific query, but I can't find anything on not being able to do further work to an unauthorised (enforcement time-barred) extension - so presumably there is nothing to stop you adding to the extension via PD or formal permission as per current regualtions

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Thanks again ^woody^.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Eventually today I managed to get the LA to confirm that no PA was ever applied for the existing garage and PD rights for the property are intact and no they don't know exactly what the PD criteria was in 1982. They verbally confirmed they do not believe there would or could be any issues arising by adding on the back even if PP was required on the original garage. That'll have to do, life's too short for expending any more time on this! I'd better get the damn job after all this!