Neighbour consultation stress

[tony1851]

@op - could you post views of your plans (with address deleted) so that we can see what's going on; you might then get more accurate answers.

 

[banana12]

This is the PD guidance I referred to when I asked my architect to redraft the plans for reapplication, which addresses the stepped rear wall situation but does not mention that it forms a side elevation. does the above guidance not apply to my situation? Also, being quite a small step out (85cm) i'm not sure if that counts as a side elevation? our proposed extension does not go beyond 6m at any point.

 

[tony1851]

If this sketch plan is the situation of your house, then the extension would not be PD.
This is because it contravenes A(1)j, which states that it is not PD if the enlargement extends beyond a wall forming a side elevation and is more than half the width of the house.
Wall marked X is a wall forming a side elevation, so the extension can't be PD (even walls having 30-40 cm projection have been counted as side elevations).

If your original plan did not show the step-back, then unfortunately you (or your architect) has a problem.

Let's say the neighbour really stirs up a stink with the council. To defend its' position, the council will simply say that it was going off information you (or your architect) provided and that had it known about the set-back, it would have rejected the application as it could never be PD. Had you already built the extension by then, it may be that the council felt it necessary to take enforcement action to have it removed on the grounds that it was unlawful.

Not trying to pour cold water on this because sometimes the rules - and how councils interpret them - are ridiculous, but just trying to point out potential pitfalls - from personal experience.

 

[banana12]

Thanks for that thorough response with drawing. Yes, what you have drawn is exactly my situation, if our adjoining neighbour is on the left. In fact, my plans have been through the hands of two architect firms (one I employed privately for the initial drawings and one who works with my builder and re-drew the original set of drawing with structural details in the last month). All professionals above visited the property and knew about the original step in the rear wall and not one person has flagged this. I have now scoured the PD rules myself again and can see clearly that this is not PD, and even extending half the width would not be PD, as we are extending 3m on top of an extension, so as a whole the entire extension would be full rear width (6m on the left and 3m on the right) if we were to do this. So any PD extension is not possible for us because of this 85 step-out of our original house.

Tony, you have saved me a lot of expense today and I am very very grateful that you "threw cold water" over my plans. You picked up on
this even though my original question was not even about whether this is PD as I had no reason to believe otherwise. Hats off sir.

Plan now -
1) delay build
2) seek a refund from our original architects who dropped the ball. Not sure how to achieve this.
2) Redraw plans to submit under full planning, to extend half the width of the original house going back 6 meters (on the half away from adjoining neighbour) and no further extension to the existing 3m extension on the rear wall nearest the adjoining neighbour. Add a cover letter signed by neighbours stating they are happy with the design and hope for the best.

Please let me know if the above sound like the right steps to take. I am in total shock that this has come to light just in the nick of time. Big thumbs up to this forum and everyone who has contributed!

 

[Nakajo]

I've not read the full thread. Do you think these plans would be refused planning permission? I'd be tempted to submit them just as they are, and see what happens. It might not be pd, but it's a fairly modest extension all the same.

 

[wessex101]

Hang on a minute, as long as the information submitted for the neighbour consultation prior approval application was not deliberately misleading and the application has received "prior approval" or whatever the technical term is then as I understand it that "approval" cannot easily be revoked. The information required to submit one of these applications is very limited so the Planners really need to check thoroughly and ideally make a site visit.

I have seen numerous prior approvals for wrap around extension that should not have been PD, even when clearly shown on fairly detailed plans. If the Planners started going back and revoking all those "approvals" there would be a huge compensation payout due.

If the neighbour really decides to pursue the best he can achieve is to complain against the Council and receive financial compensation from them, not demolish the extension as the OP has done nothing wrong.

 

[tony1851]

Hang on a minute, as long as the information submitted for the neighbour consultation prior approval application was not deliberately misleading and the application has received "prior approval" or whatever the technical term is then as I understand it that "approval" cannot easily be revoked. The information required to submit one of these applications is very limited so the Planners really need to check thoroughly and ideally make a site visit.

I have seen numerous prior approvals for wrap around extension that should not have been PD, even when clearly shown on fairly detailed plans. If the Planners started going back and revoking all those "approvals" there would be a huge compensation payout due.

If the neighbour really decides to pursue the best he can achieve is to complain against the Council and receive financial compensation from them, not demolish the extension as the OP has done nothing wrong.

When submitting the application, the developer has to include:

'a plan indicating the site and showing the proposed development' (A4/2/b).

It can be a simple sketch plan drawn free-hand; but if the drawing doesn't show the set-back, and simply shows a straight line where the proposed extension
abuts the dwelling, the LPA can claim it is misleading. Whether it is purposely misleading or not makes no difference.

Remember that this is not a formal planning application, nor an application for an LDC, where in both cases the LPA has to make a decision as whether or not to grant planning permission/LDC. On the contrary, it is more of an administrative matter where the LPA works on the information supplied.
There is no legal obligation on the LPA to actually satisfy themselves that it is PD, eg by going out to look at the site.

 

[wessex101]

When submitting the application, the developer has to include:

'a plan indicating the site and showing the proposed development' (A4/2/b).

It can be a simple sketch plan drawn free-hand; but if the drawing doesn't show the set-back, and simply shows a straight line where the proposed extension
abuts the dwelling, the LPA can claim it is misleading. Whether it is purposely misleading or not makes no difference.

Remember that this is not a formal planning application, nor an application for an LDC, where in both cases the LPA has to make a decision as whether or not to grant planning permission/LDC. On the contrary, it is more of an administrative matter where the LPA works on the information supplied.
There is no legal obligation on the LPA to actually satisfy themselves that it is PD, eg by going out to look at the site.

That is interesting. I have done a few now and some of the early ones are where there was an existing small rear addition/offset that was to be demolished and a full width extension put in it's place.

The existing offset was shown on the plans and the location plan (before I got a bit more devious) and yet they were "approved". Are you saying the Council can now come back and say they've changed their mind and it is not PD? Should I have applied for an LDC to be sure?

 

[Nakajo]

wessex - there's a fair bit of case law on issues similar to this now, and the answer is (predictably) that it's not clear cut.

 

[JP_]

what plans were sent? Can you share the exact plan that the council saw?

 

[Keithmac]

If you've shown the 85cm setback on the original approved plans I'd carry on as you were?.

Can't see the Council knocking it down whatever the neighbour says?.