anyone had more than 3m side return extension??

[first mate]

Cam123,

the cases I know of are both single-fronted terraces with, as you say, narrow side returns. Effectively the wall to the extension is as little as 4 -5 feet from the neighbouring property; the properties with side extensions also have loft extensions which take light- the overall effect is incredibly oppressive, the neighbours have lost whatever sense of space there was.

Having looked briefly at the new regs, it seems that the rationale behind the new PD is to turn unused retail units into dwellings and to provide more homes for our burgeoning population- unfortunately however, it also gives carte balnche to more of the above.

[JMT]

Red Devil is right. From 30th May this year for 3 years you can get a 6m long rear extension measured from the rear wall you are extending from (8m if a detached house) under permitted development rights, unless one of your adjacent neighbours objects, then it has to go through the planning process. Looks to me like we are going to have a lot of feuding neighbours and ugly extensions around in the near future!

[first mate]

It looks like there may be a few cases launched for right to light/loss of light too.

[Charles Martel]

first mate Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> LM,

> thanks for the detail, I shall take a look. I

> remain dubious because, as I said, I know of two

> cases where work has been done and I have senn for

> myself the before and after impact on the

> neighbours- definitely less light and definite

> loss of outlook- I was simply amazed that planners

> had okayed it.

Do you know if an objection was made to the extension at the time the planning application was made?

Southwark council does have a design standards document that gives clear guidelines for daylight and sunlight tests. It would be worrying if these were being ignored. It should be expected that the planning department would apply their own standards as a minimum when looking at applications.

[David.S]

A bit late for this thread but I'm an architect in East Dulwich and have just completed a side infill extension on my own house and on a clients house which are both the full length of the rear out-rigger at the back and against the party line of the neighbours property. The new permitted development rules help you if your neighbours don't raise an objection, if they do the council will probably ask for further details. The trick is to design the new party wall at a height that won't affect your neighbours enjoyment of their ground floor rear rooms. This is not a 'Right of Light' and has nothing to do with shadow, it is a measurement of 'Daylight'; basically the amount of daylight entering their rooms measured as a percentage. If there was an issue you would have to prove that the daylight entering their room hasn't dropped below a certain percentage which is a different amount depending on the use of the room.

David

[first mate]

David S,

You seem to suggest that a neighbour would have to accept some loss of light- so long as it does not exceed a certain amount of loss- is this correct and how is the 'percentage' value calculated? In two of the cases I know of the loss of light was great and the outlook onto a high expanse of brick wall, only 4-5 ft from the kitchen side window, was depressing and oppressive, with the kitchen cast into constant gloom.

You say it has nothing to do with shadow- is it the case that the infill you designed does not cast a longer shadow than any part of the original house formerly? I am not saying this could not happen but I am intersted to know if additional shadow has been completely avoided in your case, so that there is no loss of light?

What is your view about those who build out both along the outrigger with an infill extension as well as onto it, as in a large loft conversion? I'm sure you would agree that the overall shadow cast, as well as the loss of light, would be considerable. In the cases I refer to each had an infill as well as loft extension, both building up to and onto the outrigger- they look awful too.

[edhistory]

David.S Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The trick

> [...]

John K

[the-e-dealer]

As with most things planning - theres the simple answer and the complicated answer.

[Harleysmith]

HamiltonWalters Carpentry & Building

Mobile number - 077800004007

E-mail - [email protected]

Lenny is a local handyman and has just finished a loft conversion and kitchen extension for us and also does smaller jobs. He might be worth a call, we have refurbished our last three houses, but we have never had a building experience where we were 100% happy with every aspect of the work, until Lenny.

Hope he can help you out as much as he did me!

[Tr?]

Sorry to revive this thread but it seems on point.

Is it permitted, i.e. no planning permission required, to build a third story on the outrigger of a terraced house (in most houses I've seen the outrigger is the ktichen and kitchen extension, with a bathroom and third bedroom on the second story).

I'm told it's OK provided it's under 40sqm but given the potential impact on neighbours I'm surprised.

Thanks all.

[Jeremy]

Yes it's permitted.

By potential impact on neighbours, are you talking about loss of light?

[Tr?]

Light and view from the second bedroom window.

[LondonMix]

Yes, it?s permitted development. Given that the extension over the outrigger cannot be higher than the existing roof ridge, what kind of shadow do you think it can cast? Also, how could this impact the view out of a bedroom on the first floor of a neighbor exactly?

[Penguin68]

Do remember that 'permitted developments' mean that they do not require formal planning permisison - there used to be rules about the %age of increased space which fell under permitted development, but I think these are now suspended, at least for outriggers.

HOWEVER - there are still general rules, such as meeting building regulations as regards structure and insulation and fire safety as well as the limit on height (no higher than the existing roof ridge). So in order to give a certificate of permitted development (which any future buyer will need) the planning department does have to validate that it meets those additional rules, even though the development doesn't need to meet rules regarding planning permission, or go before a planning committee.

'Permitted' doesn't mean 'drive a coach and horses through every planning rule'.

Different planning departments have different interpretations of the rules - so some will not allow mansard roofs under permitted development, for instance, others will.

[red devil]

I'm not sure if building a third storey would be classed as an extension (Class A of Permitted Development rights) or a roof alteration (Class B ). I think you need to get confirmation from the planners.

For alterations to existing roofs the allowance for a terraced house is 40 cubic metres, not square metres. If the existing main roof has previously been extended i.e. loft conversion, dormers etc, then the volume of these additions has to be subtracted from the 40m3 allowance.

Loss of light comes under civil law, not planning law...

[LondonMix]

There was recently an appeal made by a house on Crawthew Grove regarding a roof extension over the outrigger which was granted so now roof extensions over the outrigger (at least in Southwark) are classed as permitted development within the 40 cubic meter volume allowance. As Penguin said there are many rules in addition to volume (height, set back from the eaves, etc) that must almost be met in addition to building regs. While right to light is a matter of law, planners do generally also consider loss of amenity (which includes light) when deciding planning applications (though not when granting certificates of lawfulness for work done under permitted development rules).

[red devil]

That's interesting about Crawthew, LM. Do you have a link to it?..

[LondonMix]

I found it originally in a planning application for Pellatt Rd but here is the link to both

http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/DocsOnline/Documents/278229_1.pdf

http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/AcolNetCGI.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPSESSION=%7B%5B%2A%211D1A020B050304731D3C3D31617C041E28360020373B2D3A033A2131681B1102001216030D02040A06016F691120283F3A3606243629243A06176F717277737C7E607777007F6D1D2A20212C2B20080A72666B72747E757C79666A7C%21%2A%5D%7D

[Tr?]

Well I guess if it's a southerly neighbour sharing a side return then a shadow about a floor higher than currently cast.

And the first floor window will now be 'under' the roof of the outrigger rather than above it.

LondonMix Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Yes, it?s permitted development. Given that the

> extension over the outrigger cannot be higher than

> the existing roof ridge, what kind of shadow do

> you think it can cast? Also, how could this

> impact the view out of a bedroom on the first

> floor of a neighbor exactly?

[Penguin68]

If the existing main roof has previously been extended i.e. loft conversion, dormers etc, then the volume of these additions has to be subtracted from the 40m3 allowance.

If any extension work was done prior to 1948 this does not count towards the permitted development m3 limit - I had a pre 1948 garage extension which was discounted when I had a loft extension under permitted development. I think this also is taken into account for pre 1948 addition of dormers etc. to a structure.

Remember that where part of a loft space is already being used, as long as that is within the original (or pre-1948) house 'envelope' that won't form part of any of the 40m3. This is new space - not newly used existing space. So (assuming a 45 degree roof slope), squaring off an existing sloping roof outrigger you could enclose within a new loft extension 80m3 of space, 40m3 existing and 40m3 new.

Amended to put in correct 'base' date - triggered by later post

[red devil]

That's right Penguin68, as I previously explained to you on page 2 of this thread (with the correct base date) ;-)

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1102274,page=2

LondonMix...thanks for the links, I couldn't open the Crawthew link but I get the gist of it from the Pellat link.

Crawthew added a dormer rather than a full-on additional storey. Not sure what Tre intended in their original post, but looks like a dormer is the way to go if possible with internal floor levels etc.

I would imagine any windows would have to be obscure to comply with Class B requitrements, as they would be on a 'side elevation', thus getting over the overlooking problem, not ideal for a bedroom, but a clear window could be added to elevation that looks over the rear of the garden...

[LondonMix]

Yes, that's right. Side windows must be obscured and non-opening (below a certain height) red devil but windows onto the garden are fine.

[Tr?]

This is a third story for all i and p's, RD. It will extend the length of the outrigger and stop the required distance before the eaves.

[LondonMix]

I see, you mean one of the side windows (rather than the one facing the garden) on the first floor. If the reduction in daylight into your side window reduces the total light of a habitable room significantly enough a right to light issue could arise and you could try to sue them. However, most first floor bedrooms in the outrigger have a window both over the garden and potent the side and therefore the chances that the total reduction in daylight entering the room will meet the threshold for a right to light issue isn?t high. I hope what your neighbor is planning doesn?t do you too much harm.

Tr? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Well I guess if it's a southerly neighbour sharing

> a side return then a shadow about a floor higher

> than currently cast.

>

> And the first floor window will now be 'under' the

> roof of the outrigger rather than above it.

>

> LondonMix Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Yes, it?s permitted development. Given that

> the

> > extension over the outrigger cannot be higher

> than

> > the existing roof ridge, what kind of shadow do

> > you think it can cast? Also, how could this

> > impact the view out of a bedroom on the first

> > floor of a neighbor exactly?

[Tr?]

Thanks LM, but I'm talking about the first floor window in the 'main' part of the house (in most ED houses this is the second bedroom).

I'm not suing (or being sued if I decide the do the conversion), just mining the goldmine of info that is the EDF!