Permitted development on top of permitted development?

[nuzuki]

If an extension has been built using permitted development, can another extension be done under permitted development also on the same property? or say a summerhouse? Im wondering if a certain time period has to lapse before doing so. I dont have a project in mind I was just wondering how it all works. Is this anything to do with the 4year rule maybe?

Thanks

 

[RichA]

AFAIU, as many as you like, so long as:
- they individually & collectively comply with the PD rules
- you have not had PD rights removed

i.e. you can add a porch, and a side extension, and a velux, and a dormer, and rear extension, and a shed.

 

[^woody^]

Five posts down

www.diynot.com/diy/threads/permitted-development-side-extensions-twice.472880/

 

[Nakajo]

Permitted development limits are set in relation to the original building (or the building as it stood in 1948), so as long as you remain within those limits, you can exercise your PD rights as often as you like (or until the PD rights are otherwise curtailed - i.e. as a condition of an enacted planning permission)

 

[^woody^]

If one permitted development post is made, can another similar post be made at the same time or does a certain period of time need to lapse before doing so?

Does the four week rule apply maybe?

 

[nuzuki]

Cheers for the replies but my question is slightly different from the other post. Im wondering if I can add to an existing permitted development. For example if you had a summerhouse built under PD rights would it be possible a few years later to add an overhang off each side of the summerhouse. The problem is the overhang would make the footprint of the building exceed the permitted development maximum sizes.
Sorry for the confusion, I did read the other guys post but it didnt answer my question.

 

[^woody^]

As Nakajo mentions above, PD rights relate to the existing building or that which existed in 1948. So you can only add to the existing building up to the PD limits (say a 3m extension), and not continually add to work built under PD (say a 3m extension, then anonther 3m extension to the 3m extension, then another 3m extension to the previous 3m extensions)

But, there was a recent ruling that "existing" building (more specifically wall) means that which exists "at the time of the application", and not the original as built, or that which existed in 1948.

Others may be able to comment on whether that ruling could apply, I've not really studied it.

 

[Nakajo]

I guess Woody's referring to Hilton vs SSCLG case, which explored the meaning of the phrases 'enlarged part of the dwelling house' and 'original dwellinghouse' - as opposed to 'existing', which we might agree has a different meaning. The ruling does have implications for how PD rights operate in tandem with enacted planning permissions, but I'm not convinced that it allows continuous piggy-backing of the sort being described above. But I ain't no lawyer, so I may have got the whole thing back-to-front. If anyone's interested, the transcript is available at: http://bit.ly/2hOxTVZ

 

[nuzuki]

Thanks guys. I guess lets say I sold my house tomorrow and the new buyers got to work doing some permitted development work.... then they sold up and the new buyers did the same. You can see how they would think they were within their rights but although technically they are not. Persons buying the property would just assume the building is part of the property and not be aware it was built under PD rights.

 

[Nakajo]

Ignorance is bliss

 

[chappers]

. The problem is the overhang would make the footprint of the building exceed the permitted development maximum sizes..

Then it wouldn't be permitted development