Permitted Development

[Jonathan Bucks]

Hi there

I am a journalist with the Mail on Sunday looking into Permitted Development and how the rights affect extensions. Specifically, I'm interested in how the rules have stripped local authorities of any real power. I have spoken to several planning officers who complain that eyesore extensions (that are sometimes dangerous) have appeared across the country because of the relaxed rules.

I wondered if anyone has had any experience of this around where they live?

Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks

Jonathan

 

[Notch7]

I'm not sure they could be dangerous -all types of extension are subject to the same building regulations.

I expect you are interested in the larger permitted development scheme allowing up to 8m on the rear of a detached house -although these require a neighbour consultation.

 

[Jonathan Bucks]

Yes that's right - the 8m on the rear scheme is the one I'm interested in

 

[wessex101]

I'm not sure they could be dangerous -all types of extension are subject to the same building regulations.

Not necessarily, they could call it a "conservatory" even though it has no glass in the roof and it would be exempt from the Building Regulations (not 8 metres deep though) thanks to the genius who decided it would be a good idea to remove the definition of conservatory from the regulations.

I would have thought the Planning Officers would be the best source of examples as they see all the applications but if the neighbour's do not object they are powerless to act. Plus they hate the new permitted development rules so should be only too happy to provide evidence of why it is an ill thought out politically motivated piece of legislation. As for the current consultation document regarding making these permitted development rules permanent, it just goes to show how bloody incompetent our politicians and civil servants are.

 

[garyo]

Google 'worst permitted development loopholes' and download the PDF!

 

[Notch7]

Not necessarily, they could call it a "conservatory" even though it has no glass in the roof and it would be exempt from the Building Regulations (not 8 metres deep though) thanks to the genius who decided it would be a good idea to remove the definition of conservatory from the regulations.

Yes Id forgotten about that -although that is a change in the building regulations, not directly a PD cause. Of combined that could mean a 29.95 square metre extension could be PD and bregs exempt.

I do know that house holders may go for full planning for a project, knowing that it is controversial but also have a fallback of a PD jobbie which planners cant refuse.

 

[Notch7]

Isnt there a forum to do with permitted development -posters on there might have some examples of bad PD projects.

Planners do get to refuse quite a few PDs by the side extension rules....

 

[Nakajo]

Whether or not a building is 'dangerous' is entirely unrelated to Planning/Permitted Development

 

[tony1851]

Planners do hate the hip-to-gable loft conversions - particularly on semi-detached houses.
Also the big, flat-roof dormers on the back.

 

[tony1851]

Not necessarily, they could call it a "conservatory" even though it has no glass in the roof and it would be exempt from the Building Regulations (not 8 metres deep though) thanks to the genius who decided it would be a good idea to remove the definition of conservatory from the regulations.

I would have thought the Planning Officers would be the best source of examples as they see all the applications but if the neighbour's do not object they are powerless to act. Plus they hate the new permitted development rules so should be only too happy to provide evidence of why it is an ill thought out politically motivated piece of legislation. As for the current consultation document regarding making these permitted development rules permanent, it just goes to show how bloody incompetent our politicians and civil servants are.

But remember that if you have even the smallest original extension on the back of the house, it rules out any permitted development on the rear. This is worse than the rules pre-2008, when it was volume-related .

 

[^woody^]

The worst offenders are the rear full width dormers which create an imposing three storey, that towers above and overshadows neighbouring gardens.

 

[tony1851]

People might need the extra space - many modern UK homes are too small to start with. And if it's on the back what does it matter?

 

[Leofric]

Allowing things like 8metre extensions and hip to gable extensions and dormers, as others have mentioned, under permitted development rights is just inviting people to build a lot of hideous extensions without any thought for appearance and good design . Can't understand how anybody would have wanted to bring in these rules allowing such things without the need to obtain planning permission.

 

[Leofric]

And if it's on the back what does it matter?

Tony, are you seriously suggesting people should be allowed to build anything just because it is on the back of the house ?

 

[tony1851]

Tony, are you seriously suggesting people should be allowed to build anything just because it is on the back of the house ?

People - and particularly children - should not be forced to live in small houses with rabbit-hutch sized rooms. I know it's a minority view, but my belief is that adequate housing space for children to move about and grow up in is more important than the neighbours' aesthetic sensibilities.

You could say 'move to a bigger house', but the costs of up-sizing are often prohibitive (legal fees, stamp duty, surveyors, mortgage fees etc).