Permitted dev, difference between rear and side extension

[Triggaaar]

I'm looking at the permitted development rights on the planning portal:
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/permis ... xtensions/

I have a typical property, which is 2 rooms wide at the front of the house, but 1 room wide at the rear.

I'd like to extend the shorter half of the house to reach the longer side, so that the footprint becomes a rectangle, rather than the existing L

Would this be considered a rear extension, because all of the work is behind the house frontage
or a side extension, because the work is to the side of the longest part of the house?

There are limits on how far past the rear you can go (3m for attached, 4m for detached, more for next few years). But if the extension I'm proposing is a rear extension, not a side extension, would that mean I can go 4m past the longest part of my house, and the shortest part could be extended by (in my case) 13m (it's currently 9m less than the long part)?


Many thanks for any advice

 

[markblue777]

Hi Trig,
from what I remember when doing some reading on this for it to be considered a rear extension it needs to be behind the house as of how it looked from 1948 (that is the original house so any extensions that were done since are not the back of the house and it goes by the original plans as of 1948). Therefore it should be seen as a side extension. From what I remember you can only extend up to half the width of the widest point of the house to be under permitted development.

Saying this each council has there own rules as well so really if you can ring your local council planning office they will usually be quite happy to talk to you about it.

You need to get a permitted dev certificate off them anyway.

Cheers
Mark

 

[blackrodd]

I think this description of permitted development may be a little clearer, link below.
If you haven't done so, I would go to you're planning office and without getting involved in any dialogue,
check on the plans and permission relating to you're house, just in case others before you have made additions,
and the original planning complies, size of the original garden and house on or before july 1948.
Permitted developments are, today frequently removed by a section (4, I think)
Permitted development, This was then referred to as the 10' x 10' rule in an attempt to modernise property after WW2.
The idea being to build a 10' square kitchen, and a 10' square bathroom above, without snowing down local councils
with thousands of applications,
As an aside, it was a shame that building materials were "rationed" in the very early 1950s, several people were fined here in Sunny Devon for non emergency work, etc
I would check with a friendly architect as to what you are proposing to do, as you will need a up to date Location drawing, @1-2500,for the house in question, to accompany any queries, or even building regs, even if you build under the 24 hour building regs rule.
proposed extension must be no more than 50 %. of the original, I believe, Read the link below.
I have some experience of PD around here in Sunny Devon, and found the planning department a very unhelpful,
bunch in the main, so research is king, as always!
HTH Regards Rodders
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/upload ... nsions.pdf

 

[RobinBHM]

It is shown on the permitted development for householders download on page 16

if you search for permitted development it comes up as a pdf download.

Basically on a stepped property, each segment of the the house can have an extension going back by the limits set to the rear, 3 or 4 metres (and more until next year).

PD is now very confusing, its always best to get a certificate of lawful development.

 

[Triggaaar]

Thanks all for the replies, very much appreciated.

It is shown on the permitted development for householders download on page 16

Bingo! Thanks.

Not quite what I was after, but definitely not a side extension then.

Basically on a stepped property, each segment of the the house can have an extension going back by the limits set to the rear, 3 or 4 metres (and more until next year).

Yep, looks like that's where I'm at.

My example is a bit similar to theirs, and extending each bit 4m isn't ideal, I'd like to get the whole lot lined up at the midway point - so some extended more, some not at all.

Thanks for the help.

EDIT

Wow, I've just seen page 17, and it's completely stupid (compared with 16). If the house had originally been bigger, by being a bit wider at the front (not at the rear), then you'd be allowed to extend it back LESS far. Because you can only go back 3m (or 4 for detached) from where the original rear was, but if there was no rear in the first place, you can go 3m (or 4) past the rear of the existing building (which, in my example, is further back than the side). That's ridiculous.

http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/upload ... idance.pdf

 

[mickthetree]

Hi Triggaarr

I'm in the same boat planning our extension. Stepped rear of house, want to even it up, and extend both too. We looked into a LDO (Local development order) which is what one of our neighbours has done. Worked really well for him but different scenario.
Looks like we'll be going for full planning permission so we can do what we are after.

If we mock up what we could actually do under permitted we would end up with a monstrosity of a house, but I suppose its a starndard set of rules so cannot possibly apply to all the many and varied house designs around.

 

[RobinBHM]

I always recommend to customers that it is best to apply for full planning if restricting themselves to permitted sizes is a compromise. The cost of planning is small compared to the build cost.

However, there are quite a few instances where planners have refused applications for an extension of attractive design, whereas a more ugly option which falls witihin permitted rules can of course be built and sometimes that is what happens.

 

[Triggaaar]

Looks like we'll be going for full planning permission so we can do what we are after.

If we mock up what we could actually do under permitted we would end up with a monstrosity of a house, but I suppose its a starndard set of rules so cannot possibly apply to all the many and varied house designs around.

I always recommend to customers that it is best to apply for full planning if restricting themselves to permitted sizes is a compromise. The cost of planning is small compared to the build cost.

However, there are quite a few instances where planners have refused applications for an extension of attractive design, whereas a more ugly option which falls witihin permitted rules can of course be built and sometimes that is what happens.

We'd definitely go for full planning, but it would be nice to see what we can do under PDR first, as we could print that off and show the neighbours and council and ask them which they'd prefer, just to help us get what we want through planning.

What is now annoying me is the stupid interpretation of the rules that has been applied in the technical guidance. Firstly, the actual rules say that you can go x metres past THE rear wall, meaning there is only one rear wall. The interpretation then says that all walls at the back are either subject to the rear wall or side wall limits. This is clearly a mistake because it means that smaller rectangle houses can be make bigger than the same property which has an extra step to it.

This poor interpretation also means than many stepped houses in a conservation area suddenly have no PDRs, because all rear extensions suddenly get interpreted as side extensions (which clearly they aren't), which aren't included in PDRs in a conservation area.

 

[tomf]

It's the x meters from any rear wall.
So say you have a attached house, with rooms A, B facing the highway and a room behind room A, room 1, if your 1 room is 10 meters long you could only add a rear extension onto the back of room B by 3 meters (6 if you use the neighbour scheme).
If you want to go more than 3 meters out from room A you can do a side extension but this can only be half as wide as A+B and can't be room 1 length +3meters.

 

[Triggaaar]

It's the x meters from any rear wall.
So say you have a attached house, with rooms A, B facing the highway and a room behind room A, room 1, if your 1 room is 10 meters long you could only add a rear extension onto the back of room B by 3 meters (6 if you use the neighbour scheme).

Actually, I can't even do 3 metres, as it will count as a side extension, and they're not allowed in a conservation area.

They've managed to make it so that you might be better off having a smaller house to start with, as you could end up with more than if you have a bigger house.

 

[tomf]

Yes, that is correct, if you live in a listed building or conservation area you do loose a lot of PD rights. I must have missed that bit from your posts.