Lawful development/Planning permission

[J4CKO]

We are building a 10 m by 4 metre extension which should fall under the lawful development laws, just applied for the certificate to be told that it will take 8 weeks to get it, and its not guaranteed, the height of the extension is 19cm higher than the 3m allowed, however this is apparently to the eaves and doesn't include the parapet wall so should be ok, but now in a situation where we have to wait 8 weeks where we may have to do another 8 weeks for planning if they reject it !

Why does it take 8 weeks to look at some drawings ? I asked and the guy who took payment says it will be 8 weeks to the day ffs. I was thinking 8 weeks was a worst case, not an arbitrary we are going to hold you up for 8 weeks !

As far as I am aware we don't even need the LDC and there wouldn't be any problem with planning, should we put it all on hold or just carry on regardless ?

Edited by J4CKO on Wednesday 20th September 11:30

[J4CKO]

May just stick in a Planning Application, or do I have to wait for the in progress LDC to be sorted first ?

The plans the architect have given us dont actually have the wall height on the elevations, I asked whether it was to the eaves but the only answer was its 319 cm high, the limit is 3m.


Part of the reason we were avoiding PP was the chap next door has just lost his wife and we haven't mentioned the extension, so we dont want him getting council letters about it until we have given him the courtesy of speaking in person about it but its really not the right time at the moment.

I cant see it being rejected for any reason, next door have recently had a very similar extension built, so really I think we could crack on in terms of getting the building control, structural calcs done and contacting builders, chances are the builders wont be starting for months anyway, and even if they did start earlier there would be a lot of groundwork to do.

I just despair that something so simple, i.e. a yes/no decision takes eight weeks in this day and age, all the applications are online but then it slows to the 1950s.

[J4CKO]

Equus said:

Busa mav said:

Your architect should / can tell you if it is permitted development, if its higher than allowed it WILL be refused.

This.

The LPA does not have any flexibility to interpret Permitted Development. There's no such thing as 'near enough, so we'll approve it': if it is not in compliance with the rules, it's not Permitted Development, end of.

Having said which, the guidance is perfectly clear, and NOT as most people would expect: 'eaves height' is measured to where the vertical plane of the wall intersects the plane of the plane of the roof surface, and should ignore any parapets.

But no good asking strangers on an internet forum to guarantee that for you: your Architect should carry Professional Indemnity insurance. Ask him to put his cock on the block, not us.

Edited by Equus on Wednesday 20th September 23:05

The architect cant get a straight answer, their rules are a bit open to interpretation.

So, the flat roof bit, i.e. the actual roof is the height they measure, not the parapet, the small wall round the top ?

The drawing has a scale but not any actual height on the outside, so they will need to work it out from that, I cant seem to get a straight answer as to whether it is 19 cm over at the top of the parapet or the roof level.

Think will just carry on regardless, if it gets knocked back then apply for planning, by the time we get a builder who is available and ready to start the sixteen weeks will have gone past anyway.

Should have just gone for planning I guess, still cant work out why it has to be so drawn out, almost fells like they want an opportunity to delay matters for the sake of it.

[J4CKO]

Cant seem to get an answer as to whether it is the total height including the parapet or has been said here, the actual roof level, looking at the design and measuring it at 2cm per metre (as per the scale on the drawing) it is somewhere inbetween, i.e the parapet is marginally higher than 3m, and the roof level is lower than 3m.

It also depends on where you take ground level from, one is a cross section cutaway showing the foundations, height of the roof and parapet but no ground level so you have to guess and the other is just an elevation showing the brickwork, parpapet and ground level.

So its 1/10 scale and on the drawing it is showing 6.2 ish cm, so it is, like he said 19 or so cm over, so probably going to get knocked back.

Edited by J4CKO on Thursday 21st September 13:27

[J4CKO]

Equus said:

J4CKO said:

Cant seem to get an answer as to whether it is the total height including the parapet or has been said here, the actual roof level,

Read the fking technical guide. It's all in there, for anyone with a basic grasp of the English language.

Also sack your Architect: he (or she) should know this stuff themselves. Or be able to read: either would be acceptable.

You didnt actually link to the doc you referenced, he sent me a copy of,

Town and Country Planning, England

The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)(England) Order 2015

he said its on page 17, first para

"the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would be within 2 metres of the boundary of the curtilage of the dwellinghouse, and the height of the eaves of the enlarged part would exceed 3 metres;"

sniggers at "Enlarged Part"

So, the confusion he has seen is been the interpretation of "Eaves", if its the roof itself, we are good, even a layman like me can see its under the 3m, if its the parapet, then it will get knocked back, there doesnt seem to be any consistency as to how they interpret their own rules and very little in a right of appeal.

[J4CKO]

Took a photo of the plans with a ruler on to show the situation,


Untitled by Mark Jackson, on Flickr


Untitled by Mark Jackson, on Flickr

[J4CKO]

Equus said:

J4CKO said:

You didnt actually link to the doc you referenced, he sent me a copy of,

Yes I did: click the highlighted word 'this' on my post timed 13:14 today. It answers your question very clearly and specifically.

Edited to add:
Or click these words in blue wot I have written here in the form of what we call a 'hyperlink' - clever, innit - if you want to see the guidance referred to.

And have you got Building Regulations (as opposed to Planning) approval for those drawings, yet? They are separate systems, and you WILL need B.Regs approval, regardless of whether it's Permitted Development under Planning. From the drawing extracts you've posted above, I'd be mentioning the phrases 'cold roof' and 'cross ventilation requirements' to your esteemed Architect, if I were you.

I'm hoping that gutter and fallpipe arrangements are shown elsewhere on the drawings, too, unless you're planning to keep goldfish up there.

Edited by Equus on Thursday 21st September 15:32

Yes, have engaged a company to deal with those aspects and do the inspections, rather than the council, they are approved by the council to carry out that work on their behalf. They are doing Plan Vetting and Site Visits.

The architect came recommended, a couple we know who are serial house extended and have recently done a full new build have used him, three different projects.

Based on the hyperlink (which I thought I had looked for) compared to the drawing and it looks like we should be ok, i.e. they measure tot he roof surface and not the parapet, so lets see how it actually goes.

[J4CKO]

TA14 said:

J4CKO said:

So, the confusion he has seen is been the interpretation of "Eaves", if its the roof itself, we are good, even a layman like me can see its under the 3m, if its the parapet, then it will get knocked back, there doesnt seem to be any consistency as to how they interpret their own rules and very little in a right of appeal.

You/your architect haven't helped yourself. If the submission is confusing to you then what chance have the Council got. For something on the limit carefull dimensions or a note explaining why it is PD would have been nice. If it comes down to scaling off drgs then it's virtually a dead duck - almost every drg has a note which reads "do not scale off this drg"

As you say it's not the end of the world.

Next time make sure that the drg on the submission clearly conforms to the PD rules - make it simple for them

I did email him and suggest that he added something to that effect, but he didn't, never done this before myself so not sure of the process and pitfalls, its sticking a box on the back of a house, how hard can it be !

[J4CKO]

Well, council are bhing, will try and get a photo, it wasnt the height but the fact there is a square bay on the back of the "Original Dwellinghouse", house is ten metres across and the bay is about half a metre deep and covers maybe two to three metres across. The extension will encompass this part.


house by Mark Jackson, on Flickr

The lady at the council is classing the side of the bay as the side of the house and applying the rules for that scenario

Having reviewed the proposals submitted as part of the above application I regret to advise that the proposed extension does not comply with the GPDO 2015. As the proposed extension extends beyond a side wall of the original dwelling house and has a width greater than half the dwellinghouse. The side wall I refer to is part of the small rear element which extends the breakfast room by 0.5m.

Goes on to say

I understand that the proposed extension does not extend beyond the main side wall of the dwelling, however as that small off shoot of half a meter is original, the side walls of this section are also considered to be the side elevation of a dwellinghouse. Therefore as the extension is across this section, it is considered that it does extend beyond the side elevation of the original dwellinghouse.

She quotes this doc

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...

The bit on the right was an existing extension.


Anyone got any good comebacks ?

Edited by J4CKO on Friday 3rd November 13:30

[J4CKO]

Busa mav said:

Yes, tell her she is quite correct

Ah ok, so looks like planning is inevitable ?

It doesnt make much difference as we dont have the quotes back yet and none the three builders can start until next year anyway, she did say with planning it wouldnt be a problem, its another £176 but int he scheme of things its peanuts, just annoying it took seven weeks for them to tell us !