Prior approval refused
- Thread starter JodieC
- Start date
Sponsored Links
It's a bit of a crappy rule, or the way it's enforced is I would agree. But them's the rules I'm afraid.
Sponsored Links
On a separate note, just received refusal in writing. They make reference to the extension having a width greater than half the width of the 'original dwellinghouse'. How they calculate this...would it be half the width of my house and garage combined i.e this measures 6.4m and therefore I could build extension up to 3.2m or do they just take the measurement of the house?
The width of the house is the width of the whole house, it's all as clear as day in the technical guidance I linked to.
Yes the width of the original dwelling house is as the dwelling was built, or how it stood in 1948 (think that's the date!) Is the garage original? If so include the width of the far wall of the garage to the part where your house ends, and meets your neighbours, that would be the original width of the house (about 6m ish looking at your drawing).. If that's the case your extension your proposing can be 3m wide.
If it's not original, then the width of your house would be just the physical 2 storey house section (roughly 4-4.5m ish from the drawing).. If that's the case then you would be allowed probably less of an extension because you already have a side extension as a garage, and this additional extension would exceed the half the width of the house rule in almost every scenario.
You can leave it detached from the garage in some way, and you can do the "rear" extension then under prior approval. Fencing isn't great to overcome the problem, because you could just remove the fencing after the approval, and the issue is still there.
Is the neighbour that you are attached to bothered about this extension / going to complain?
If it's not original, then the width of your house would be just the physical 2 storey house section (roughly 4-4.5m ish from the drawing).. If that's the case then you would be allowed probably less of an extension because you already have a side extension as a garage, and this additional extension would exceed the half the width of the house rule in almost every scenario.
You can leave it detached from the garage in some way, and you can do the "rear" extension then under prior approval. Fencing isn't great to overcome the problem, because you could just remove the fencing after the approval, and the issue is still there.
Is the neighbour that you are attached to bothered about this extension / going to complain?
Yeah I understand, What I was trying to get at is that if the garage is not original then the wrap-around element comes in to play, and as the OP already has some "side extension" elements then she will be allowed to extend barely anything at all that attaches to the garage wall, under PD (like 0.5m or something ridiculous) Wrap arounds are allowed under PD as long as they conform with the side / rear rules still.
Def. go make an application, or just leave a gap and have a bit of an awkward extension not linked to the garage, that's tricky to maintain..
Def. go make an application, or just leave a gap and have a bit of an awkward extension not linked to the garage, that's tricky to maintain..
When measuring the width of the house, do you reckon projections can be taken into account? A side chimney breast for example. Or maybe a buttress. I've been looking but can't find anything definitive.
Again I'm not sure it's down in the legislation, but I would definitely be taking those in to consideration, if they form the widest point of the dwelling. It says "Original dwelling house" only so chimneys stacks etc in my eyes form the dwelling.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If it is completely detached from the garage, then you could overlap / bridge / it yes in terms of the legislation it wouldn't need permission.
However, I've seen cases where the council have still taken a view that (after an application had already been put in or works had started - can't remember which) that the extension would still require permission because the intent / harm would still be there. I personally don't think that was right, and would of liked the applicant to challenge it and / or take it to appeal, but they just submitted an application anyway.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@ the OP I recall there have been several appeals where the side elevation debate has been been argued by the appellant and lost.
jeds, the techy guidance merely states The width of the original house should be calculated at its widest point. In my opinion that would include chimney's or other projections but not fittings like RWPs. It would be interesting to see if anyone has ever made an appeal on the basis that projections would not be included.
Woody, I know what you’re saying but as the intent is there I think a council would decline an application on PD. Would be interesting t see how it went if it went to appeal. woody, get one your clients to do it and find out for us.
jeds, the techy guidance merely states The width of the original house should be calculated at its widest point. In my opinion that would include chimney's or other projections but not fittings like RWPs. It would be interesting to see if anyone has ever made an appeal on the basis that projections would not be included.
Woody, I know what you’re saying but as the intent is there I think a council would decline an application on PD. Would be interesting t see how it went if it went to appeal. woody, get one your clients to do it and find out for us.
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
Sponsored Links
Similar threads
