Permitted development technical details

[rak85]

Hello,

I have previously posted a thread regarding my rejected planning application here.
Since then, I have lodged an appeal which is under consideration. I'm thinking about fallbacks in case the appeal is dismissed.

Basically, I will be happy if I can at least get a single storey back extension. I have gone through some applications on LPA website and Appeals site and the main reason for rejection were side-wall/rear-wall arguments.

My LPA has condensed the permitted development assessment into a checklist they go through (attached).

GPDO states that: The rear wall or walls of a house will be those which are directly opposite the front of the house.

Is my front elevation the one facing road giving the postcode or the one facing other road where the main door is?

Because the house has this corbel feature in the roof, although it does not go all the way to the ground, could it be considered as a "wall" making the proposal a side extension rather than a rear extension somehow?

Thirdly, looking at previous applications, there used to be a shed to the side of the house. which is towards the end of the house. This was shown in plans but don't form "original house" but I have no way to prove it. This is not attached to original house in anyway but I'm concerned that the LPA might view it as original structure and do GPDO assessment based on that.

I don't want to chance it because knowing my LPA, they just need a slightest of reasons to reject any application from me and appeals are taking months.

Old Side elevation

Old Front elevation

 

[Swwils]

Add some solar panels, they love those.

 

[^woody^]

Have you sacked the previous numpty and got a better designer?

 

[rak85]

Have you sacked the previous numpty and got a better designer?

I have but nothing to design at the moment as I am still waiting for the appeal process

 

[tony1851]

1. did you submit an application for a larger home extension?
2. Did the adjoining owner, or anyone at the rear whose boundary is contigious with your rear boundary, object?

It appears that you could answer yes to 1. and no to 2. because the council stated that no objection was received. So why don't you just build it?

Or have I misunderstood what's going on?

 

[rak85]

1. did you submit an application for a larger home extension?
2. Did the adjoining owner, or anyone at the rear whose boundary is contigious with your rear boundary, object?

It appears that you could answer yes to 1. and no to 2. because the council stated that no objection was received. So why don't you just build it?

Or have I misunderstood what's going on?

I moved to this house last year and the previous owner has put in an application for side extension. The layout was a bit weird so I standardized it with a variation application (open plan) which also got approved but building either is expensive. This was before the prise rises and interest rates hike. So, I applied for a simpler two storey rear extension. I know the second application I submitted is not permitted development as a part of it is with-in 2m of the neighbours. The council has approved one such permitted development application in the past (I think by mistake) but rejected another at a later date. I didn't want to take a chance and also wanted white rendering. So, I applied for a planning application which got rejected for silly reasons (as stated in other post). I have appealed that application but it is taking forever. I'm now thinking of just doing a single storey rear extension under permitted development rights but want to make sure that it is permitted development.

There was never a permitted development application on this house. These PD applications are also taking 2 months to decide. I have seen some PD applications rejected because of staggered rear wall making it not a rear extension but a side extension (GPDO is funny that way). So, my question is the corbel feature on the top considered a "wall"?

There are no houses at the back... There is a 30m wide open area. The rear extension I am planning does not need any neighbour consultation (3m) and I don't want to just build it as I don't want an enforcement notice asking it to be teared down later. My LPA has something against me /old owner and acting very weirdly.

 

[thomp1983]

I think your getting a bit confused about all the rules, if what you want to build is permitted development then you get on and build it, the clues in the name, it is permitted by default no planning application is required but you need to make sure you stick to the pd rules or you may end up in trouble.

 

[rak85]

I think your getting a bit confused about all the rules, if what you want to build is permitted development then you get on and build it, the clues in the name, it is permitted by default no planning application is required but you need to make sure you stick to the pd rules or you may end up in trouble.

I know what you mean but the problem is "sticking to PD rules"

I understand that Certificate is not needed but if I construct something thinking that it is within permitted development but due to small technicality, it is not, it is not liable for enforcement?
Here is a recent appeal: https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewCase.aspx?CaseID=3284504&CoID=0
Council refused it for silly reason, considering the bay window as "side wall". The appeal officer approved it yet said this in the "costs" decision:

As it can be seen from my decision, the Technical Guidance was not determinative in this case, as it is guidance rather than law. The guidance does not provide an example that would represent the exact circumstances of this case, and therefore an interpretation of the guidance was required. I have disagreed with the Council’s interpretation in this regard and allowed the appeal, but this does not automatically indicate that unreasonable behaviour has occurred. To the contrary, it only demonstrates that the matter was open to interpretation and has quite rightly been resolved via the appeal process.

Here are two PD certificate applications for something I was considering:

Rejected:
https://planning.welhat.gov.uk/Planning/Display/6/2019/2286/LAWP

Approved:
https://planning.welhat.gov.uk/Planning/Display/6/2018/1136/LAWP

The approved one is wrongfully approved. If I build mine according to the above, the council will definitely not like it as they made it abundantly clear in my planning application.

 

[Nakajo]

I'm not a lawyer, but it's my understanding that Permitted Development and Lawful Development Certificates belong to two separate pieces of legislation (GPDO 2015 and TCPA 1990, respectively - there's also LBCA 1990, but we can ignore that one for the purposes of this discussion). So, it's not necessarily correct to say that an LDC is 'wrongfully' approved just because it doesn't conform to GPDO 2015. Anyway, if you can demonstrate that your proposal is markedly better than what might otherwise be obtained under PD, the Council may be inclined to look upon it more favourably.

 

[tony1851]

If its the corbels you are worrying about (in terms of them forming small side-facing walls) I think you are worrying needlessly.

The Technical Guidance specifically excludes features such as guttering, barge boards and eaves etc from being taken into account when measuring.

I think your planning department would be hard-pressed to claim a 3m single-storey extension across the back, 4m max height, 3m eaves height, would not be Permitted Development.

Just do it.

 

[rak85]

I'm not a lawyer, but it's my understanding that Permitted Development and Lawful Development Certificates belong to two separate pieces of legislation (GPDO 2015 and TCPA 1990, respectively - there's also LBCA 1990, but we can ignore that one for the purposes of this discussion). So, it's not necessarily correct to say that an LDC is 'wrongfully' approved just because it doesn't conform to GPDO 2015. Anyway, if you can demonstrate that your proposal is markedly better than what might otherwise be obtained under PD, the Council may be inclined to look upon it more favourably.

My understanding is certificate of lawful development is not necessary but building within Permitted development is necessary (if not explicitly applying for planning application). What the certificate does though is confirm that the proposal is according to PD before construction for the sake of future legal issues that may arise. I have also seen cases where sale of house fell through because there was no confirmation that that the extension was lawful, required by lenders. I said "wrongfully" because according to many appeals and certificate applications across many LPAs, it apparently is not within GDPO.

My question to you is, if a proposal is not according to GPDO or there is no planning application, how can that proposal be lawful?

I considered and am still considering demonstrating what you mentioned in the last point... it means applying for PD then applying for planning application... 4 months in total.

What is baffling to me is that the planning officers don't give much weight to PD rights, without me applying for one prior to planning application, while judging planning applications.

If its the corbels you are worrying about (in terms of them forming small side-facing walls) I think you are worrying needlessly.

The Technical Guidance specifically excludes features such as guttering, barge boards and eaves etc from being taken into account when measuring.

I think your planning department would be hard-pressed to claim a 3m single-storey extension across the back, 4m max height, 3m eaves height, would not be Permitted Development.

Just do it.

Thanks. This is what I needed to know.

 

[^woody^]

My migraine is coming back

 

[Nakajo]

I refer you to my previous reply