Planning rules on extensions to be relaxed 'to boost economy

[tony1851]

Would you have no limits on any domestic development?

At the risk of opprobrium, I would agree with that. Many would retort: 'then how would YOU like a 20-foot 2-storey extension adjoining your back garden?' Personally, I wouldn't bother as long as it satisfied structural and fire-safety issues and was not a danger to my property (ie conformed to Building Regs).

But if ALL planning restrictions were lifted, I suggest that large extensions to existing houses would not necessariy follow. Land would become so cheap, and houses far more plentiful - and cheaper - it could well be easier to move to a bigger house rather than extend an existing one

Whilst I hope the amendments to the GPDO take place, the Government is merely tinkering with an obsolete and useless system. Perhaps a little more radical thinking is called for.

 

[geraldthehamster]

Would you have no limits on any domestic development?

Has anyone suggested no limits?

Having said that, it's interesting to note that both the National Health Service and the Town and Country Planning Act are listed among the achievements of this country's greatest post-war Prime Minister (Clement Attlee). The current government doesn't seem too keen on either ...

Cheers
Richard

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Has anyone suggested no limits?

No one has suggested that though if you read some of tony's posts on the subject of the planning system he does seem to think that planners are only there to self serve.

I think the current PD system is about right actually and generally pretty clear. No system will ever be perfect.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Would you have no limits on any domestic development?

At the risk of opprobrium, I would agree with that. Many would retort: 'then how would YOU like a 20-foot 2-storey extension adjoining your back garden?' Personally, I wouldn't bother as long as it satisfied structural and fire-safety issues and was not a danger to my property

Well that's fine, but what if you lived in a small terrace and each neighbour did that, completely enclosing your back yard, it may not seem so good then.

 

[geraldthehamster]

Has anyone suggested no limits?

No one has suggested that though if you read some of tony's posts on the subject of the planning system he does seem to think that planners are only there to self serve.

I think the current PD system is about right actually and generally pretty clear. No system will ever be perfect.

I tend to agree, though I would like slightly larger PD limits. I do think they should get rid of some of the restrictive anomalies - for example, the two permitted extensions of going x metres beyond a rear elevation, and 50% house width for an extension going beyond the side elevation, should be additive, not reductive.

It should also be easier to build another property on one's land, rather than just an extension.

 

[tony1851]

I do think they should get rid of some of the restrictive anomalies

One problem with the current rules is that concerning wrap-rounds. If you build an extension out 3m at the rear, and then return it round the side, it needs p.p.
But a similar-sized separate side and rear extension would not. As Freddy ponts out, no system is perfect, but the parliamentary draftsmen who put the 2008 revisions together must have been asleep.

Take 'the rear wall'. Under the p.d.rules, a house can apparently have more than one rear wall. That defies logic; it's shoddy thinking and shoddy drafting.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Take 'the rear wall'. Under the p.d.rules, a house can apparently have more than one rear wall. That defies logic; it's shoddy thinking and shoddy drafting.

In what way, how would legislate the depth of an extension, which wall would you call the rear one, the furthest one back? In which case we'll end up with 8m extensions or whatever. I completely agree there are a couple of holes here and there and the rules made more practical/logical ie your wraparound example.

 

[tony1851]

Freddy;
At the risk of being tiresome, 'the rear wall' is main thing in the interpretation which really gets up my nose.

A house can have only one rear wall. It can have 2 (or more) rear-facing walls, but it can only have one rear wall. The only exception would be a 'U'-shaped house in plan, where the rear wings project equally.

In the diagram, according to the Technical Guidance, wall 'X' is the rear wall. So what do we call wall 'Y'? The 'rear-rear wall'? It can't be a 'wall to the rear of the rear wall'.

The word 'the' is the definite article and can only refer to one wall. DCLGs interpretation is putting meaning into words which is not there.

I agree that on my interpretation, we could have deep extensions, but that is not the point. If the legal draughtsman had written '3m from any rear-facing wall', that would be a different matter. DCLoG's interpretation smacks of 'Nineteen-Eighty Four' IMO.

Untitled

• tony1851
• 11 Apr 2013
• 1

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

You're merely arguing about poor grammar, the 'rear wall' has been defined as any rear wall and you know to interpret a reference to 'the rear wall' as any rear wall so why does it get up your nose? Because they should have written 'any rear wall' in the first place?

 

[tony1851]

the 'rear wall' has been defined as any rear wall

Where?


It's not a case of bad grammar, its a case of DCLG putting their own interpretation on the actual wording. In doing this, they are effectively changing the law because their interpretation does not tally with the wording of the law.

Only an Appeal Court judge can pronounce conclusively on the meaning and in cases of statutory interpretation, the first port of call is the statutory instrument itself.

If non-judicial bodies start saying "the words don't really mean THIS, they mean THAT", then we are in dangerous territory.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

You know its any rear wall I know its any rear wall. Its in the technical guidance which we have to refer to.

When clients approach you and ask you how deep their extension can be under PD do you say lets say the one furthest back? Or do you say its any rear wall?

 

[tony1851]

You know its any rear wall I know its any rear wall. Its in the technical guidance which we have to refer to.

When clients approach you and ask you how deep their extension can be under PD do you say lets say the one furthest back? Or do you say its any rear wall?

The wording doesn't say 'any rear wall', it says 'THE rear wall' - 'any rear wall' is meaningless.

Statutes are supposed to be interpreted in the ordinary everyday meaning of the words, ie proper English, not DCLoG-speak. My old English teachers would be turning in their graves.

Can we agree to differ?

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

We can agree to disagree, however:

When clients approach you and ask you how deep their extension can be under PD do you say lets say the one furthest back? Or do you say its any rear wall?

 

[tony1851]

When clients approach you and ask you how deep their extension can be under PD do you say lets say the one furthest back? Or do you say its any rear wall?

Yes, I tell them it refers to the wall they're extending from (in other words that the rules say black = white) but only so as not to get into trouble!

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Keep taking the pills Tony!