Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hi,


I know this is an often asked question, and at risk of being repetitive, I thought I would ask again. We have just purchased a terraced house in ED. The house has a side return that was likely built after the original structure was built but at least in appearances is over 30 years old. We would like to rebuild the side return (it was built with a very poor quality) and extend on the ground floor only about 2 meters. We would stay within the applicable height restrictions for the roof (i.e., eaves height of 3 meters). Simple question is whether I need planning permission?


I did a search on the Southwark planning permission website and did not find many certificates of lawful development for extensions (in comparison to, say, loft conversions) and found a few rejections. I just can't really figure out why what I would like to do would not fall under PD rights. My architect first said we absolutely need planning permission but is now suggesting that PD would be an option.


Would be grateful if someone could offer a clear explanation.

I guess you've looked at these


5.6 Extensions 5.6.1 The residential design standards SPD (2011) sets out the standards that should be required when considering proposals for extensions that require planning permission.

5.6.2 Where extensions are proposed, they should be in keeping with the character of the area and for the most part follow the guidance set out in the residential design standards SPD. In some cases, however, larger development that exceeds the 3 metres by 3 metre threshold set out in the SPD could be considered. In particular detached and semi-detached properties with substantial gardens may accommodate a larger extension providing the openness of an area is not compromised, the design is clearly subservient to the main part of a building and it would not add appreciably to the building?s bulk.

5.6.3 Roof extensions and changes to the basic roof form within the conservation areas are generally likely to be intrusive and unacceptable. In those few cases where the roof is already altered or hidden from view, some alterations may be possible. In such cases, we will normally seek low-key solutions minimising any adverse visual impact through the use of sympathetic designs and appropriate materials. Further information is contained within the relevant conservation area appraisals.

5.6.4 The principle of roof extensions outside of conservation areas is generally acceptable provided that the scale and design of the extension follows the guidance contained within the residential design standards SPD. A roof extension, therefore, should normally be confined to the rear elevation of dwellings. It should be a subsidiary element to the building and thus set down from the ridge of the main house, in from either side of the roof slope and up from the eaves.

5.6.5 A roof extension will not be permitted if it would unbalance the proportions of a building or harm the architectural integrity of a group, including an unbroken run of butterfly roofs. Also, a roof extension will not be acceptable if it extends over the full length of the outrigger as this would not be considered a subsidiary or subservient element. Further information is contained within the residential design standards SPD

5.6.6 Roof extensions and extensions to the rear of a property can also have an impact on bat activity. All British bat species are afforded protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. As Dulwich is a known area for bat activity we may require extra information to be submitted with an application. Further information is set out in section 6.5 of this SPD and our Sustainable Design and Construction SPD.


from the Dulwich SPD ?http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200151/supplementary_planning_documents_and_guidance/1247/dulwich_spd/1


and this


Side extensions

Side extensions should

? Be subsidiary to the main building

? If the side extension is proposed to be more than

single storey, the upper floor should be set back

from the side building line

? Have roofs that match those of existing buildings

in terms of roof shapes and pitches

? Avoid the infilling of gaps between properties,

where this is an important townscape feature.


from

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200151/supplementary_planning_documents_and_guidance/1253/residential_design_standards_spd

It is worth being concerned about the existing extension as Southwark will take into account. For us they turned down an original application done under permitted development as they referred to an old map of area (think it was 1946) that showed no form of extended rear to house ever existed.

Looks like the cut-off date is 1st July 1948

http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/permission/commonprojects/extensions/


So the extension only counts as "original" if it was done before that date.


So it does seem likely that you'll need planning permission.

Thanks. I appreciate the definition of "original dwellinghouse". I think, in order to fall under PD, I could only extend the original rear extension and not the side return. I would think that I could rebuild the side return without seeking planning permission because its currently existing on the property. If I got comfortable that we fall under PD, I presume that I could start building (assuming other issues addressed -- eg. party wall act) and could apply for a certificate of lawful development at the same time?


Any reason why architects automatically assume you need planning permission?

OK -- but this is only if planning permission is sought.


intexasatthe moment Wrote:

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

> I guess you've looked at these

>

> 5.6 Extensions 5.6.1 The residential design

> standards SPD (2011) sets out the standards that

> should be required when considering proposals for

> extensions that require planning permission.

> 5.6.2 Where extensions are proposed, they should

> be in keeping with the character of the area and

> for the most part follow the guidance set out in

> the residential design standards SPD. In some

> cases, however, larger development that exceeds

> the 3 metres by 3 metre threshold set out in the

> SPD could be considered. In particular detached

> and semi-detached properties with substantial

> gardens may accommodate a larger extension

> providing the openness of an area is not

> compromised, the design is clearly subservient to

> the main part of a building and it would not add

> appreciably to the building?s bulk.

> 5.6.3 Roof extensions and changes to the basic

> roof form within the conservation areas are

> generally likely to be intrusive and unacceptable.

> In those few cases where the roof is already

> altered or hidden from view, some alterations may

> be possible. In such cases, we will normally seek

> low-key solutions minimising any adverse visual

> impact through the use of sympathetic designs and

> appropriate materials. Further information is

> contained within the relevant conservation area

> appraisals.

> 5.6.4 The principle of roof extensions outside of

> conservation areas is generally acceptable

> provided that the scale and design of the

> extension follows the guidance contained within

> the residential design standards SPD. A roof

> extension, therefore, should normally be confined

> to the rear elevation of dwellings. It should be a

> subsidiary element to the building and thus set

> down from the ridge of the main house, in from

> either side of the roof slope and up from the

> eaves.

> 5.6.5 A roof extension will not be permitted if it

> would unbalance the proportions of a building or

> harm

> the architectural integrity of a group, including

> an unbroken run of butterfly roofs. Also, a roof e

> xtension will not be acceptable if it extends over

> the full length of the outrigger as this would not

> be considered a subsidiary or subservient element.

> Further information is contained within the

> residential design standards SPD

> 5.6.6 Roof extensions and extensions to the rear

> of a property can also have an impact on bat

> activity. All British bat species are afforded

> protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act

> 1981. As Dulwich is a known area for bat activity

> we may require extra information to be submitted

> with an application. Further information is set

> out in section 6.5 of this SPD and our Sustainable

> Design and Construction SPD.

>

> from the Dulwich SPD

> ?http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200151/supplemen

> tary_planning_documents_and_guidance/1247/dulwich_

> spd/1

>

> and this

>

> Side extensions

> Side extensions should

> ? Be subsidiary to the main building

> ?

> If the side extension is proposed to be more than

>

> single storey, the upper floor should be set back

>

> from the side building line

> ?

> Have roofs that match those of existing buildings

>

> in terms of roof shapes and pitches

> ?

> Avoid the infilling of gaps between properties,

> where this is an important townscape feature.

>

> from

> http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200151/supplement

> ary_planning_documents_and_guidance/1253/residenti

> al_design_standards_spd

We are rebuilding a side extension and put in for PD, which we were originally told would be all we needed. When the planners discovered there was no evidence of the original side extension, they then required a full planning permission request. If you start building before you receive planning permission, you can be required to take it down, even if the permission is then granted.


Also, our builder refused to do a thing until we had PP. Or, rather, he was happy to start pulling the old stuff down, but wouldn't even start digging for foundations until the paperwork was there.

Even where work falls under 'permitted development' you will need a lawfullness certificate if you want to sell, which needs to be applied for before work starts - additionally of course any work you do must meet local building regulations - which means that work may be checked during the build to make sure it is meeting them (i.e. types of insulation etc.)

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Thanks for stating the bleeding obvious
    • Yes, they are intelligent ❤️ Various methods of deterring the foxes (aka stopping them coming and crapping on your lawn) have been suggested in this thread. If you don't want to try them, and prefer to keep clearing up the crap and complaining about it, well that's YOUR choice 🙄
    • Weather going to be hot from today thru to weekend so I hope all dog owners walk their pooches early in the morning or in the cool of the evening. Woofers can survive the odd day without going for walkies in the heat or having to race around with their pack in the heat. Try brain games with them around the house - hid treats for them to find, given them a kong..  Mental stimulation is as good and beneficial as walkies and does tire them out.     And whilst on the subject of heat and dogs, do remember that leaving a couple of windows open while you run into a shop etc to get groceries etc …. Is not good enough / the inside of a car obviously gets very very hot… and one could be delayed in ship, thru no fault of your own - meanwhile, your woofer is suffering.  Common sense really and if you are a new owner, probably really never thought it through ie walking dogs in heat or leaving them in car in heat. The majority of people on this site are caring, supportive people only offering advice, expressing concern when they see stupidity.  
    • Weirdly (well, weird as it happened very shortly after I had posted that) I got a notice the other day (the first time in the near enough twenty years since I joined the forum) telling me I had reached my limit of "reactions". I posted a screenshot on here. However I did not actually seem be prevented  from  making any more!   What is your purpose in doing that? This is a useful, long running and well loved (by me, anyway) local forum. It provides information on matters of local interest, an opportunity to easily sell or give away  unwanted things and buy or be given things you want, information on upcoming local events and interest groups. It is also a well moderated place to discuss both local and wider issues. And it is used by a variety of different kinds of people, as would be expected - we all have different personalities, experiences and opinions, and that's part of what makes the forum such a great local asset. Since rescuing the forum when the previous admin left - it could have disappeared altogether - Joe has put and continues to put an enormous amount of work into setting it up on a different platform (?) , maintaining it, and keeping it a safe and pleasant place for everyone using it. I'm sure you and others will correct me if I'm wrong, but it feels to me that dissecting "posters and their patterns" in the way you describe - presumably then to post the results on here?  - is just going to sow seeds of discord which could stop some people posting altogether and generally change the whole nature of the forum. I think that would be very sad, and I hope that that isn't your intention? Are you going to include your own posts in this? You have joined the forum relatively recently, and seem to be self-described as a "Pain".
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...