Permitted development advice please

[Blofeld72]

Hi all, looking for some permitted development advice please. Looked at a house to buy which we would like to extend if we bought it. It’s a detached bungalow about 1970 with a loft conversion and a conservatory on the back, the conservatory is not original. We would like to do I think they’re called a ‘wraparound’ extension involving replacing the conservatory and have considered two alternatives which we think could be done under permitted development.

At this point we're not quite sure the little bit sticking out on the top right is existing or a previous silly little extension, it looks like bay window which you'd normally see on the front of a house.

Please can someone have a look and confirm we are interpreting the rules correctly? We think we can do a wraparound as long as the width is not greater than half the overall width of the house. The rules seem pretty clear on height etc so it’s really just the footprint we’re querying, if the bay on the side was original can we include that in the 'width of the house' measurement?

Existing



Alternative 1



Alternative 2

 

[jeds]

It seems a bit over the top for that tiny little corner but both your options are technically wrap-around and you can't do any wrap-around under PD. A lot of people would say the risk here is pretty small and do it anyway but I couldn't advise you to do that, in case things turn nasty. Weigh up the risk; if you do it and the LPA get a complaint they will ask you to submit a planning app. How likely is it to get planning? It does seem pretty innocuous to me but things can look different on the ground.

 

[JP_]

Yeah, I wanted to come out a little on the rear extension of my bungalow, and as soon as I did that it would need full planning as although only a small width, they measure the whole lot, if that makes sense... as you are going out and sideways. But, mine was fill width.

For the sake of £170, or whatever it is now, I'd always go full planning, but do the drawings yourself to save money, then nobody can moan later when it gets approved.

 

[Blofeld72]

Ok thank you guys, I'm not doubting what you guys are saying I just want to understand the rules and if I have to do a planning application then so be it.

I've also just found our that the bit on the side (top right) is original which I think would a) mean I could only come off the back of the little side bit by 4m rather than the rear of the main house and b) make the Alternative 2 a front extension too so that would have to be no further forward than the little bit on the side.

But back to the wraparound bit if you'll humour me please, on this diagram in the technical guidance it says:

'The following examples, however, would not be permitted development. In each case, the extension extends beyond a side wall and is more than half the width of the original house.'

which (in my head at least) reads if the extension is less than half the width of the original house it would be permitted?



I suppose I'm struggling to find in the rules where it says the side bit and the rear bit cannot be joined together.

 

[JP_]

yeah, you might be OK. But if it is not clear then others might question it too.

 

[wessex101]

PD is not my strong point but I thought you could have a "wrap around" extension as long it isn't more than half the width of the house like a side extension.

 

[Blofeld72]

PD is not my strong point but I thought you could have a "wrap around" extension as long it isn't more than half the width of the house like a side extension.

Yes that's what I thought, hopefully Jed's etc will care to comment further.

 

[jeds]

Looking closer I think I agree, but the issue is that the overall extension extends beyond 4m so you would need a prior notification.

 

[Blofeld72]

Looking closer I think I agree, but the issue is that the overall extension extends beyond 4m so you would need a prior notification.

Ooh, so you think it is permitted if I limit the depth to 4m off the back of the little outrigger thing and don't go any further forward than the outrigger either?

 

[JP_]

I thought pd could go out 6m for semi now?, Or 8m for detached. Or did they stop that already?

 

[Blofeld72]

It's 8m only with the prior development thing but that only applies to a purely rear extension doesn't it? Whereas this is a rear and side extension.

 

[Nakajo]

In this instance, I suppose an LDC would put the matter to rest

 

[Blofeld72]

Hmm, I'd be interested in understanding anyone elses views on the subject? It seems to me that the rules don't say you can't do it?

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Hey woody, what's your opinion, there are no grey area's afterall are there?

 

[Blofeld72]

Hey woody, what's your opinion, there are no grey area's afterall are there?

I'm sorry I'm not following, who's woody?