anyone had more than 3m side return extension??

[red devil]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> 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.

Previous changes are taken into account, but the current PD regs take precedent over the old PD 'volume regs'*.

For instance, if you bought a terraced house that previously had been extended under the old 'volume regs' which afforded a rear extension 2.5m in depth, then under the current 'linear regs' you would be able to extend the extension a futher 0.5m, taking you out to 3m, the current limit for a terraced house.

If an extension built under the old 'volume regs' only used up half of the volume allowance, say 15m3, you can't retrospectively go back and claim the other half. You can only increase if you stay within the current 'linear regs'.

*The current PD regs allow a volume increase for works to the main roof only, e.g. loft extensions. From memory this is 40-50 cubic metres depending on the type of house e.g terrace, semi/detached. Under the old PD regs, householders were allowed to increase the volume of their house by a percentage of the volume of the original** house. Again from memory, this was 10-15% depending on type of house, e.g. terrace, semi/detached. So if your house volume was 200m3 you could extend 20-30m3. This % was an allowance for all extensions, e.g. loft, side, rear etc. There was no separation like there is under the current regs. So if you were allowed to increase the volume of the house by 30m3, you could for example add 10m3 to the loft and 20m3 for a side extension.

**There is a base date of July 1st 1948 for what constitutes the 'original' house. Any extensions built before then are discounted.

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.

For non PD planning applications, the planners do not have fixed linear or volume limits like PD. Instead they tend to adopt a general design guide policy (they will have additional guides for Conservation areas, Listed Buildings etc), and will judge each application on it's own merits. That's why it's important to consult with the planners when going down this route as their design guide is open to interpretation. For example they would probably advise you what the maximum height a side extension boundary wall should be, e.g. 2.2m

[the-e-dealer]

RUBBISH Even if they are shorter than the original depth of the house OF COURSE

IT COULD CAUSE A PROBLEM> If more likely to be the HEIGHT that affects light into the kitchen window or rear living room window.

I dont think precedents count for much in planning they may however show that something might be allowed.

LondonMix Wrote:

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

> Side return extensions that don't go beyond the

> original depth of the house shouldn't cause a

> problem as your neighbours homes should end at the

> same point. Large rear and wrap around extensions

> (side + rear both being extended beyond the

> original footprint) are more problematic and

> planners are loath to grant permission for wrap

> around extensions for the reasons you've

> highlighted these days without light studies being

> done etc.

[LondonMix]

Precedents do make it much more likely that something will be approved though nothing is ever guaranteed.

Light studies would disagree with your other point regarding single storey side extensions that do not extend further out than the existing end of either terrace.

[first mate]

LM,

Just to clarify, and you may not know the answers, do these light studies show that there is absolutely no impact on the neighbour from a side return infill terrace extension, or is it about degrees of shadow? Additionally, does any of this depend on the design of the extension, that is sloping or flat roof, material used, slate or glass? Who does the light studies do you have any sources for your assertions - I'm not being picky or prickly, I just wonder if you happen to know?

[edhistory]

healey Wrote:

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

> Find out for yourself?

>

I don't think so.

After I commissioned "The Architecture of Peckham"

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Architecture-Peckham-Tim-Charlesworth/dp/0948585021 I had a close look at East Dulwich to see whether it would be viable to publish a sister volume for East Dulwich.

It was not.

Parts of the Dyos http://www.amazon.co.uk/Victorian-Suburb-Study-Growth-Camberwell/dp/0718511263

have sections on East Dulwich and the map of the estate boundaries is useful. It can probably be borrowed from Southwark Libraries.

There is probably more East Dulwich material here:

http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/urbanhistory/research/dyos .

When, in 1989, I was having that closer look at East Dulwich I did not find any domestic "side return" extensions.

The actual phrase "side return" seems to be an import by in-comers, or at least not used in the parts of East Dulwich where I have lived.

If someone suggests domestic "side return" extensions in the modern sense have a long East Dulwich history I would like to know where and when they were built as I must have missed them first time around.

Hence the question:

> 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]

First Mate-- All of the details matter including the orientation of the house, the design of the roof (including materials) etc. Light surveys are quite complex and are done based on fixed BRE guidelines. If you google Daylight and Sunlight Assessment you'll get an idea of who specialises in this sort of thing. Also, light pollution is another issue they deal with which is the flip side.

My best friend is a residential architect so its something that she deals with a lot and yes, I would say rarely does a single storey infill extension cause a real problem regarding loss of light. Most planning officers assume as standard that if an infill doesn't extend beyond the original bounary of the row of terraces and if the roof eaves are circa 2.2m there won't be loss of light.

I have friends who are dealing with a big development close to their home and a light assessment needed to be done. To their surprise, there was no loss of light (and this is a significant project) but there was some light pollution so some changes needed to be made.

I think we often suspect we'll lose more light than is actually the case. What does bother people is the loss of outlook which can be very depressing, particularly of the materials used are of poor quality. Loss of this type of ammenity though is a key consideration for getting planning approval. Its about balance.

[the-e-dealer]

And Reflected Light?

[newtoedf]

Thought it worth pointing out that even where a development passes the daylight sunlight planning criteria it may well still interfere with a neighbour's right to light as these are quite separate calculations. The RICS has a useful guide http://www.rics.org/Global/Downloads/RightToLight.pdf

[the-e-dealer]

I'd be interested to see an application in Southwark where precedent was the key issue that swung it.

[LalKJ]

Rafsta, just to go back to your original post, we're about to have a side and rear wrap around extension (single storey)- filing in the side return and going three metres back - although we are in a semi rather than terrace and are only going out to the width of the living room part of the house, so still leaving a side access path. We applied for planning permission and received it no problem without any complaints. We did however involve our neighbours from a very early stage and slightly amended our plans to try to accommodate an issue they had (sorted between us, not with the planners). I would say that all our neighbours have so far been very understanding; rightly or wrongly, these type of extensions are now common place in ED, as you can probably tell from all the builders hoardings up around the place, and I think are generally acceptable, provided that everyone tries to behave decently during the building works etc. We plan to keep our neighbours updated on timings, check and make good any damage or dirt and buy them a nice bottle of wine and have them round at the end of the process. No doubt we will be on the other end of it at some time as more of these extensions are completed.

Happy to provide our architects/builders details if you need. Good luck!

[LondonMix]

T-e-d, this was a certificate of lawfulness but under the planning history in the Officer's report you can see that the successful appeal of Crawthew Grove was incorporated into the analysis. http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/DocsOnline/Documents/278229_1.pdf

I can't say if that's what swung it or not.

Right to Light is a legal concept. If you have a Right to Light claim, you can sue and or get an injunction even if Planning Permission has been granted. A single storey extension in a terrace though with eaves at 2.2m and a sloping roof is very unlikely to breach Right to Light. Just as a rule of thumb the 45 degree angle rule is used by a lot of LA's though its actually more complicated than this to determine if there is a Right to Light issue.

In a terrace, the neighbour you are not attached to at the back would have to extend into their side return. Your side return plus the boundary gap would need to be less than 4.5 feet if the eaves were at 2.2m with a sloping roof given the position of a typical low window (circa 2.5 feet above the ground).

Anyway, I am not an apologist for bad extensions. I think they are inconsiderate too.

[LalKJ]

Sorry, also should have said, to properly answer your question, our kitchen is currently also about 6 metres, and no issue at all with filling in the whole length of the side return, and also for us extending further back. There was also no mention to us, by anybody, architect or planners, about any light surveys or the like.

[LondonMix]

Sorry, I should have clarified that for an side return infill its very unlikely that planners will ask for a light survey if you aren't doing something very high.

[first mate]

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.

[LondonMix]

How high was the single storey extension? That makes a big difference.

[edhistory]

first mate Wrote:

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

> 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.

There are some strange geometries here.

I suggest you use a pencil, ruler, and squared/graph paper and see if you can devise any configuration that does not lessen the neighbour's quiet enjoyment of his property.

John K

[first mate]

LM,

Don't know height but ceratinly higher than the 7ft'ish fence they had there before.

John K, I'm sorry, but are you suggesting that it is impossible to devise an extension that would not affect the neighbour, or that I must be mistaken in suggesting that the impact I perceived was negative?

[LondonMix]

If anyone actually wants to work it, here are the guidelines:

The Right to Light rule of thumb test is that a line drawn at a 45 degree angle from the bottom of your window shouldn't intersect the roof of the building next door for example. In creating this line, you are effectively creating a right-isosceles with its base starting the bottom of your window running parallel to the ground up to your neighbours wall. Because the triangle is an isosceles the base length will equal the height of the triangle.

This basically means that you'll pass the 45 degree angle test if the gap between your window and your neighbours wall is greater than or equal to the height of the portion of their wall above the bottom of your window and ending at the eaves if its a sloped roof.

For example, if the bottom of your window is 2.5ft off the ground, and the gap between your window and their wall is 7 feet, then the total height of their wall from the ground to the eaves could be 9.5 feet (7ft+2.5 ft).

[first mate]

LM, that is really useful- thanks.

[LondonMix]

That's only a rule of thumb. The legal basis for Right to Light is how much illumination the room gets and what's considered adequate varies from one area to the next. However, if you haven't breached this general guideline it?s unlikely that there will be an issue.

[edhistory]

First Mate,

You need to try examples in plan as well as in section.

The real world is three dimensional.

John K

[red devil]

The new PD rights will come into force on 30th May 2013...

http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/general/news/stories/2013/may13/090513/09052013_0

[i*Rate]

First mate, thanks for your comments about nuisance to neighbours.

Yes, if you have 'made the grade' and managed to move to ED, please consider those funny old folks next door with dodgy accents and bad teeth - they are human. When you go off to work leaving all the cements mixers, lorries and skips outside your house and theirs, do think of the noise that they have to put up with all day plus the dust blowing into their homes and the mud and sand on the pavements to trudge through. Remember that this area has been their home for thirty to forty years and when they came here it was just an ordinary run-down south London district when the house had to be patched-up to make them habitable.

Cheers.

And may the loft be with you.

[Cam123]

As far as loss of light goes, it's worth considering how these houses' shadows are cast. In virtually all single-fronted Victorian terraces, the side-returns are surrounded by two or three stories of brickwork and it is this that often makes the side-returns dark (depending on the orientation of the houses). If however the houses are orientated so that the house does not cast a shadow over the side return area, then obviously a side return extension wouldn't either.

[Jeremy]

Vaguely on the subject of side return extensions and fascinating stuff like that... has anybody had a loft conversion done after a side return extension has already been built? Just wondering whether it's actually possible to get the scaffolding up at the back, especially if the extension has a sloping roof...