anyone had more than 3m side return extension??

[first mate]

Penguin68,

I think that if there is something on the table for the neighbour whereby they also gain that is altogether different.

Sadly, in the cases I have observed the gain is all one-sided with significant losses on the other. Add to this the imposition of major building works, the noise, the dust, and mess, a small terrace owner will have to endure right up close to their own kitchen. Again, the owners of the homes being extended did not offer any cleaning for their neighbours property etc..- pretty poor, don't you think?

Again, I stress the irony that objectors are castigated for 'moaning about light' but the USP of the extensions and conversions is all about light, light, light.

[LondonMix]

This is nonsense. This generation is hardly the first to extend the original Victorian houses. Houses have continually been extended and reconfigured by their occupants each generation to accommodate new ways of living. Its a natural evolution of the housing stock overtime.

edhistory Wrote:

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

> giggirl Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Because a lot of houses in this area didn't

> have

> > inside toilets when they were built.

>

> Interesting. Which properties can you identify?

> Does it apply in this case?

>

> > It's about reconfiguring existing

> > space for modern living.

>

> Destruction to satisfy a personal preference.

>

> John K

[red devil]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> Rules on permitted development are based also

> around cubic metre extension - so you have to work

> out the volume and not just the external (square)

> dimensions.

This isn't the case anymore for non-loft extensions, e.g. ground floor extensions. The volume regs pertaining to extensions were changed nearly 5 years ago...

[red devil]

giggirl Wrote:

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

> edhistory Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Why do people choose to move into an area and

> then

> > destroy its architectural heritage?

> >

> > John K

>

>

> Because a lot of houses in this area didn't have

> inside toilets when they were built. That doesn't

> fly today. It's about reconfiguring existing

> space for modern living.

Most people just want a big fuck off open plan living/dining/kitchen space...

[Penguin68]

The volume regs pertaining to extensions were changed nearly 5 years ago...

I had thought that previous changes to a house were taken into account for all extensions under permitted development, and that these were volume based. Where planning permission is applied for (i.e. not 'permitted development' - which, if agreed to be permitted' is covered simply by building regs and part wall agremeents and any planning rules on roof heights) then the linear and not cubic dimensions are the drivers - these having to meet planning rules.

[first mate]

Red devil said,

"Most people just want a big @#$%& off open plan living/dining/kitchen space..."

I think you have the heart of the matter and don't forget the light, airy feel, it's all about the space and the light.

[edhistory]

LondonMix Wrote:

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

> This is nonsense. This generation is hardly the

> first to extend the original Victorian houses.

> Houses have continually been extended and

> reconfigured by their occupants each generation to

> accommodate new ways of living. Its a natural

> evolution of the housing stock overtime.

So, when was the first "side return" extension done that destroyed the side garden/yard and probaby the back addition ground floor bay window?

Just an East Dulwich street name and approximate date will be fine.

John K

[LondonMix]

I didn't say that. I said people have reconfigured and extended in ways that made sense for each generation. There were many rear extensions of the original sculleries as well as first floor extensions for bathrooms throughout ED to accommodate bathrooms, utility areas etc in previous generations. Redundant outbuildings were demolished or incorporated into the internal envelope of the property. Internal reconfigurations include knocking through the two internal reception rooms to open up that space just to name one of the most common internal changes. I have friends who have lived in ED for 2 generations so I can give you specific houses (Crystal Palace and Whately Road) where this has been done but I doubt this is necessary as its so common it barely needs validation.

One generation made one type of change while this generation is doing another. I am not a fan of inconsiderate extensions and am glad the House of Lords have insisted that the relaxation of permitted development will incorporate neighbour objections. However, acting like this generation is doing anything unique in wanting to adopt their living accommodation is just silly.

[edhistory]

So, when was the first "side return" extension, the subject of this thread, done that destroyed the side garden/yard and probaby the back addition ground floor bay window?

Just an East Dulwich street name and approximate date will be fine.

John K

[LondonMix]

I've already explained my point twice. If you fail to grasp it, there is nothing more to say.

[Anna27]

I would have to agree our extension has enhanced the house it was badly damaged during the war so we actually salvaged doors, put in fireplaces, restored radiators... I like to think that we have preserved something that had been unloved for so long, original kitchen was structurally unsound, we kept as much as we could the cupboard doors have been incorporated into the new kitchen. Homes have to adapt and should so if done sympathetically to the original building. We have never had complains from the neighbours about loss of light, its a glass roof! They are not elderly.

[edhistory]

LondonMix Wrote:

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

> I've already explained my point twice. If you fail

> to grasp it, there is nothing more to say.

Except that you are unable to answer the question.

John K

[rafsta]

John K. This forum is not about your opinion on the architectural heritage in east dulwich so unless you have had a side return extension done on your house and would like to give us some advise I am not sure what you are doing here.

Thanks everyone for your comments, we will certainly take our neighbours into consideration when drawing the plan

Will post some pics once done if we get the planning :)

[Jeremy]

I agree that preserving architectural heritage is important. But we have designated conservation areas and listed buildings for that purpose... and most of ED, consisting of row after row of generic terrace housing doesn't really qualify. The local architecture is not unique or stand-out, and neither is the trend for extending and remodelling.

These are peoples homes first and foremost, and a balance has to be struck between conservation, and giving people the freedom to make their homes work for them. Especially in a city with a large population, scarce brownfield land for development, and high property prices meaning that large houses are only within the reach of a privileged few. I'd argue that the balance of preserving the frontage but giving owners the freedom to do what they want at the rear (and inside) of the property, seems quite fair.

[healey]

Find out for yourself?

edhistory Wrote:

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

> So, when was the first "side return" extension,

> the subject of this thread, done that destroyed

> the side garden/yard and probaby the back addition

> ground floor bay window?

>

> Just an East Dulwich street name and approximate

> date will be fine.

>

> John K

[first mate]

Jeremy,

Oh yes, people should be able to reconfigure their home in whichever way they choose within the orginal building footprint, it's just that seriously extending the footprint of the building as well as the overall height may have a nasty knock-on effect on neighbouring homes. Specifically, where terraces are concerned, it is quite difficult to increase the footprint without affecting your neighbour- the key point is whether they are okay with it or not and to what degree there should be give and take. I don't like the attitude that goes: I want this, I think I can probably swing it within the rules, and the neighbours will just have to like it or lump it.

Anna27, I'm sure your home is lovely and it sounds as though you compromised and simply did not go all out for as much space as you could possibly grab. It's great that your neighbours are happy. If neighbours are consulted and are happy then one can ask no more. It's the situations where neighbours are deeply unhappy and where no comprises are forthcoming that concerns me, and such cases certainly do exist.

[edhistory]

rafsta Wrote:

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

> John K. This forum is not about your opinion on

> the architectural heritage in east dulwich

If I had a forelock...

John K

[Jeremy]

first mate Wrote:

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

> Specifically, where terraces are concerned, it is

> quite difficult to increase the footprint without

> affecting your neighbour- the key point is whether

> they are okay with it or not and to what degree

> there should be give and take.

Not 100% sure about all this stuff, but if neighbours aren't happy about it, can't they

a) object to the planning request

b) if it falls under permitted development, refuse the party wall agreement

[first mate]

Jeremy, I don't think you can refuse a party wall agreement, if you don't sign up then you automatically go into dispute and party wall surveyors are called in to sort it out; because the party wall is jointly owned you cannot refuse as such. I stand to be corrected though by others who know more about planning.

As for the right to object, well if it's PD the right to object may not really help- I guess it's a bit like MP's expenses, those who 'err' may be strictly legal but it leaves a nasty taste in the mouth.

6m is approx 19 ft, this added on to an existing 6m kitchen , plus extension to the side, makes for a huge space- that would surely run parallel to a significant stretch of the neighbour's garden? Most terraces have quite narrow gardens and if there is a also a loft conversion I cannot see how there would not cause an increase in the amount of shadow thrown.

[Jeremy]

I don't think anyone is talking about adding an extra 6m onto the back of an existing 6m kitchen? That would be ludicrous...

[LondonMix]

First mate is right about the party wall.

No one is suggesting doing a rear extension measuring 6m in this thread but rather an infill side extension (which is common place). However, the government plans to extend PD rights so that a 6m rear extension on a terraced property would automatically be allowed via PD rights. This could come into effect this month. The House of Lords has recommended that neighbours be granted the ability to object (though planning permission as such would not be needed). We'll see what happens...

[first mate]

LM,

I meant the prospect of an automatic right to extend out to the back by 6m is rather worrying because of the inevitable effect on those next door- that is if I have understood this correctly?

I also wonder how many of those who have had this sort of work done offer for their neighbour's property (relevant paths, windows etc..) to be properly cleaned at their expense, when building works have finished. It seems to me that this is a courtesy that should be a matter of course.

If Anna is still around, just as a matter if interest what height is the actual boundary/party wall with your neighbour, before it slopes up into glass?

[LondonMix]

I agree with you first mate-- I was responding to Jeremy regarding the rear extension question-- I should have quoted him.

[Jeremy]

Agreed that extending 6m out the back would have a very negative impact for neighbours. I'm generally OK with side return extensions though.

[LondonMix]

Ditto Jeremy. I think surprisingly for the EDF we all agree with one another!