Extensions and permitted development

[pits]

We have a terrible conservatory at the back of the house which needs to go, I suppose long and short of it.
I believe footings are a metre deep, previous owner ran out of money, fitted conservatory.
My understanding of the regs is that no more than 3m from original house out into the garden, which the conservatory is.
Must be within 7 metres of rear boundary from the end of the conservatory (10m from original house wall to boundary line)
Those two I fall into quite happily under permitted development.

If my footings are a metre deep, I know the slab is solid (will core sample anyway for true depth), is it just a case then of building a block wall upwards (plan to go just below eaves)m flat roof, job jobbed, Is there anything I would fall fowl on? I think I have read that I would need frosted glass on the new windows upstairs?

[smokey mow]

You appear to be mixing both planning and building regulations requirements. The two are separate and have different criteria.

Even if what you are proposing to build is permitted development you would still need to make a building regulations application for the new extension.

[Little Lofty]

For a two story extension you will need planning permission and building regs, PD only covers up to 4m high.

[smokey mow]

Little Lofty said:

For a two story extension you will need planning permission and building regs, PD only covers up to 4m high.

You can do a 2-storey extension under PD, subject to meeting the relevant criteria.

[TA14]

smokey mow said:

Little Lofty said:

For a two story extension you will need planning permission and building regs, PD only covers up to 4m high.

You can do a 2-storey extension under PD, subject to meeting the relevant criteria.

Even then, a certificate of lawful development would be handy when selling the property.

[Little Lofty]

My bad, I thought max height for PD was 4m, so that would rule out 2 story.

[GasEngineer]

Little Lofty said:

My bad, I thought max height for PD was 4m, so that would rule out 2 story.

You're right though LL. It's 4m if the existing house is detached and 3m for semis, terraces etc.

[TA14]

GasEngineer said:

Little Lofty said:

My bad, I thought max height for PD was 4m, so that would rule out 2 story.

You're right though LL. It's 4m if the existing house is detached and 3m for semis, terraces etc.

The Government's guidance and advisory websites agree with SM though:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5d7...
https://www.fmb.org.uk/find-a-builder/ultimate-gui...

[pits]

TA14 said:

GasEngineer said:

Little Lofty said:

My bad, I thought max height for PD was 4m, so that would rule out 2 story.

You're right though LL. It's 4m if the existing house is detached and 3m for semis, terraces etc.

The Government's guidance and advisory websites agree with SM though:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5d7...
https://www.fmb.org.uk/find-a-builder/ultimate-gui...

Right so reading through those I have come across these two

Website said:

Maximum height:
The height of the roof ridge and eaves can’t exceed the height of the ridge and eaves on the original house. Any part of the roof falling within 2 metres of your neighbours’ boundaries must be a maximum height of 3 metres.

I was planning to come just below the original eaves, which I think I am ok there with, but I fall down on the last part, but going on the government page

Website said:

Householders wishing to build a larger extension have to notify the local planning authority
about the proposed extension and the local planning authority must give adjoining
neighbours notice of the proposals and the opportunity to object. Works cannot commence
until the local planning authority notifies the householder that no prior approval is required,
or gives prior approval, or 42 days have passed without any decision by the local planning
authority.

Now I make that, if I want to go up to the height I want to then I don't need planning permission, but I do need to inform planning who will do a consultation with the neighbours (which is fair enough), I only have 3 neighbours that would be affected by it, one left, one right and one behind, I do get on witht them all, and that I can't (potentially) do a flat roof as it must match the original roof, but I do have a dorma conversion in the attic already, so maybe I could get away with flat roof?

[Little Lofty]

It’s better to build what you want, not what fits PD, planning costs are peanuts in the scheme of things, it sounds unlikely it would be rejected. You will need plans for building control anyway.

[Cow Corner 2.0]

Little Lofty said:

It s better to build what you want, not what fits PD, planning costs are peanuts in the scheme of things, it sounds unlikely it would be rejected. You will need plans for building control anyway.

100%

[pits]

Little Lofty said:

It s better to build what you want, not what fits PD, planning costs are peanuts in the scheme of things, it sounds unlikely it would be rejected. You will need plans for building control anyway.

In all honesty that is the right answer isn't it? Much obliged

[Mark V GTD]

As an architect we deal with both PD and conventional planning applications (central London). When considering the PD path its very much a question of how closely a PD solution will fit your requirements. In many case PD is often the only solution as similar development would not be permissible under traditional planning laws.

Generally, and perhaps at odds with some comments here, if you can make a PD extension solution suit you then go for it. But if its only the apparent simplification of the process that attracts you (rather than the merits of the design itself) then perhaps consider a more tailored solution that may require planning consent.

[Jeremy-75qq8]

Along the same lines as the above post of can also get you planning for something they would normally decline under policy.

You put in a pd application( cert lawful use ) at the same time as planning.

The planning application highlights that the pd application is the fallback.

This can be used in 2 ways

A. You want ( numbers made up ) 4.5m, pd gives you 4m but planning policy would give you 3m. On th basis your fallback already beaches local policy they may agree to your 4.5m

B. Pd can allow some outlandish creations. You make the pd version so unpalatable that the application you ran approved which is outside policy is a relief to all concerned so it is approved.