Single-storey terraced house extension -- do I need planning permission?

[LD929]

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.

[Penguin68]

Try this for starters - I think it is covered by Class A work

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CDAQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.planningportal.gov.uk%2Fuploads%2F100806_PDforhouseholders_TechnicalGuidance.pdf&ei=DjmtU7vtIMHeOty5gOgH&usg=AFQjCNHP0UWknZ25YJks0dS9Sv12O5vq0w&bvm=bv.69837884,d.ZWU&cad=rja

http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/100806_PDforhouseholders_TechnicalGuidance.pdf

Amended to add this link

A Guide to Permitted Development Rules | Homebuilding & Renovating

http://www.homebuilding.co.uk/advice/project-tips/planning-permission/permitted-development-rules

[intexasatthe moment]

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

[lpool]

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.

[James Barber]

Yes.

[Jeremy]

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.

[LD929]

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?

[Jeremy]

Out of interest - why not apply for planning, rather than build something which isn't really what you wanted?

[LD929]

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

[simonethebeaver]

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.

[LD929]

Thanks, Simonethebeaver. Anyone know a good way to find original plans for an early 1920s house?

You think the planners use this? http://maps.southwark.gov.uk/connect/index.jsp?tooltip=yes

[Penguin68]

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.)