Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
UK diy (uk.d-i-y) For the discussion of all topics related to diy (do-it-yourself) in the UK. All levels of experience and proficency are welcome to join in to ask questions or offer solutions. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Help: Planning application for two storey extension
Hi,
I recently applied for planning permission to build a two-storey extension on the side of my semi-detached house. There is an existent detached garage there which would be demolished to make way for the extension. The proposed extension would be inline with the exisiting house (i.e. not set forward or back of the current house). The house is right at the end of a row of semis so the extension side is not very close to another property. I've just had a letter from the local council saying that there have been no specific objections to the application but that we would have to set back the extension by 1 metre from the the existing house in order to get approval because "(it) would allow the extension to sit more comfortably with the parent dwelling ...". However the main purpose of this extension is to gain a double bedroom and reducing the size of this room by 1 metre would make it a single and useless to us. We haven't got much space at the back so I don't think it would be feasable to move the whole thing back by 1m. The property is not listed and we do not live in a conservation area. (It's an ordinary 1960's semi). The only other house in our street that has been extended recently did not have to have any "set back". (The houses are not long front to back). Does anyone have any practical suggestions that may help to solve this issue, please? Where can I find out more about this? Thanks in advance (Worried) |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Planning application for two storey extension
Does anyone have any practical suggestions that may help to solve this
issue, please? Where can I find out more about this? The best thing is to arrange a meeting with the planners. Often some discussion and explanation from both sides can overcome this sort of problem. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Planning application for two storey extension
Sound advice there.
Failing that the only other option would be to find a surveyor/architect who is an expert on planning matters who may be able to persuade the council to overturn the decision. Hugh -- "Peter Crosland" wrote in message ... Does anyone have any practical suggestions that may help to solve this issue, please? Where can I find out more about this? The best thing is to arrange a meeting with the planners. Often some discussion and explanation from both sides can overcome this sort of problem. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Planning application for two storey extension
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 13:03:48 +0100, "Peter Crosland"
wrote: Does anyone have any practical suggestions that may help to solve this issue, please? Where can I find out more about this? The best thing is to arrange a meeting with the planners. Often some discussion and explanation from both sides can overcome this sort of problem. Yes, point out that other extensions don't have the 1m set back. This possibly sets a prescident. sPoNIX |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Planning application for two storey extension
"Peter Crosland" wrote in message ... Does anyone have any practical suggestions that may help to solve this issue, please? Where can I find out more about this? The best thing is to arrange a meeting with the planners. Often some discussion and explanation from both sides can overcome this sort of problem. While this is probably your only route, I have to say that an extension similar to what you what you describe, set back 1m from the front of the house has just been put up around the corner from where I live and it is far more visually attractive than another property that was done several years ago with the extension in-line with the existing house, which just looks totally out of place. I know that this is of no use to you but I believe that this is probably the perspective that the planners may now be taking. Personally I would prefer to see any two storey side extension set back from the main house (unless it was possibly my own :-), but as it is I'm only planning a single storey extension along the rear, and a little bit of the side. Having said all that I've some friends who had there two storey side extension, in-line with their property built a couple of years ago, despite objections from the neighbours... so the exact criteria are certainly not clear without some discussion with the planners involved. cheers David |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Planning application for two storey extension
"sPoNiX" wrote in message ... On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 13:03:48 +0100, "Peter Crosland" wrote: Does anyone have any practical suggestions that may help to solve this issue, please? Where can I find out more about this? The best thing is to arrange a meeting with the planners. Often some discussion and explanation from both sides can overcome this sort of problem. Yes, point out that other extensions don't have the 1m set back. This possibly sets a prescident. sPoNIX Yeah, but planning conditions, as with building regulations can change and going by what I've seen locally precedent is not all that important (to our local planners at least.) David |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Planning application for two storey extension
"David" wrote in message ... "Peter Crosland" wrote in message ... Does anyone have any practical suggestions that may help to solve this issue, please? Where can I find out more about this? The best thing is to arrange a meeting with the planners. Often some discussion and explanation from both sides can overcome this sort of problem. While this is probably your only route, I have to say that an extension similar to what you what you describe, set back 1m from the front of the house has just been put up around the corner from where I live and it is far more visually attractive than another property that was done several years ago with the extension in-line with the existing house, which just looks totally out of place. Some authorities insist than any extension cannot be flush with the existing walls. This means that a rear extension is a walls width inboard than the main walls. Sometimes it look hideous. I can't see why they insist on this, as it makes no sense at all. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Planning application for two storey extension
"IMM" wrote in message ... "David" wrote in message ... "Peter Crosland" wrote in message ... Does anyone have any practical suggestions that may help to solve this issue, please? Where can I find out more about this? The best thing is to arrange a meeting with the planners. Often some discussion and explanation from both sides can overcome this sort of problem. While this is probably your only route, I have to say that an extension similar to what you what you describe, set back 1m from the front of the house has just been put up around the corner from where I live and it is far more visually attractive than another property that was done several years ago with the extension in-line with the existing house, which just looks totally out of place. Some authorities insist than any extension cannot be flush with the existing walls. This means that a rear extension is a walls width inboard than the main walls. Sometimes it look hideous. I can't see why they insist on this, as it makes no sense at all. While I would agree that it may be dodgy (and a bit pointless) on a rear extension, for any side extension that I've seen, my personal opinion is that setting back actually looks a lot better. David |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Planning application for two storey extension
In article , Imm wrote:
Some authorities insist than any extension cannot be flush with the existing walls. This means that a rear extension is a walls width inboard than the main walls. Sometimes it look hideous. I can't see why they insist on this, as it makes no sense at all. On a brick house it nicely conceals any slight mismatch between the old and new brick colours, and, although planners would not be interested in this, provides a convenient place for a movement joint. The usual reason IME for requiring a setback is to be prevent the appearance of terracing where adjacent semis want to build 2-storey extensions out to the boundary. The OP suggests that this is not a factor in his case so it is probably worth establishing why the council has this policy and arguing that it is not appropriate in this particular case. -- Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Planning application for two storey extension
David wrote:
"IMM" wrote in message ... "David" wrote in message ... "Peter Crosland" wrote in message ... Does anyone have any practical suggestions that may help to solve this issue, please? Where can I find out more about this? The best thing is to arrange a meeting with the planners. Often some discussion and explanation from both sides can overcome this sort of problem. While this is probably your only route, I have to say that an extension similar to what you what you describe, set back 1m from the front of the house has just been put up around the corner from where I live and it is far more visually attractive than another property that was done several years ago with the extension in-line with the existing house, which just looks totally out of place. Some authorities insist than any extension cannot be flush with the existing walls. This means that a rear extension is a walls width inboard than the main walls. Sometimes it look hideous. I can't see why they insist on this, as it makes no sense at all. While I would agree that it may be dodgy (and a bit pointless) on a rear extension, for any side extension that I've seen, my personal opinion is that setting back actually looks a lot better. David You can get a similar visual effect by using a darker brick at the join. The planners may go for it if he can get a good drawing sghowing the effect |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Help: Planning application for two storey extension
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Help: Planning application for two storey extension
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Planning application for two storey extension
"sPoNiX" wrote in message ... On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 13:03:48 +0100, "Peter Crosland" wrote: Does anyone have any practical suggestions that may help to solve this issue, please? Where can I find out more about this? The best thing is to arrange a meeting with the planners. Often some discussion and explanation from both sides can overcome this sort of problem. Yes, point out that other extensions don't have the 1m set back. This possibly sets a prescident. I believe there was a recent recommendation from whatever the professional body is for architects that this is done and the council is following that advice. The previous extension probably predates that advice and so won't set a precident. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Planning application for two storey extension
x-no-archive: yes
Tony Bryer wrote in message ... In article , Imm wrote: On a brick house it nicely conceals any slight mismatch between the old and new brick colours, and, although planners would not be interested in this, provides a convenient place for a movement joint. The usual reason IME for requiring a setback is to be prevent the appearance of terracing where adjacent semis want to build 2-storey extensions out to the boundary. The OP suggests that this is not a factor in his case so it is probably worth establishing why the council has this policy and arguing that it is not appropriate in this particular case. -- Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm Agree with this - a set-back can visually reduce the apparent in-filling of a gap between 2 houses (neighbours are often concerned about two detached houses becoming more like terraced ones, for example), but also it's normally good design to make sure that an extension is visually subordinate to the building that it's extending - shows the organic growth of a building over time (a traditional way of building), shows that it's an 'extension'! |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Help: Planning application for two storey extension
In article , IMM
writes "Ziggy" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 12:15:28 +0100, wrote: With house prices as they are here (London), moving to a larger house is not an option. Quite frankly, planners seem to have lost sight of the fact that houses are for living in. They have lost sight that houses must be put on land as well. Strange as on a programme this week, one planner was happily talking of the need for housing as a justification for building in a beauty spot near Aylesbury. I know of no beauty spots near Aylesbury. Then you don't know Aylesbury then, but then if we had to list all the things you don't know John it would bring the internet to its knees with the amount of bandwidth taken up -- David |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Planning application for two storey extension
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 17:44:44 +0100, "G&M" wrote:
I believe there was a recent recommendation from whatever the professional body is for architects that this is done and the council is following that advice. The previous extension probably predates that advice and so won't set a precident. I have been informed that this "set back" rule only applies to semi-detached houses and not to detached houses (the previous extension was on a detached house). Figure that one out! OP. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Planning application for two storey extension
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 21:37:54 +0100, "David Byers"
wrote: Agree with this - a set-back can visually reduce the apparent in-filling of a gap between 2 houses (neighbours are often concerned about two detached houses becoming more like terraced ones, for example), but also it's normally good design to make sure that an extension is visually subordinate to the building that it's extending - shows the organic growth of a building over time (a traditional way of building), shows that it's an 'extension'! There are many extensions around here that are not "visually subordinate". For example there is one semi that has more than doubled in size. I can't see what so wonderful about seeing the "organic growth" of my house over time. It's not a 14th Century Castle - it's a 1960's semi!!! OP. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Help: Planning application for two storey extension
wrote in message ... In article , IMM writes "Ziggy" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 12:15:28 +0100, wrote: With house prices as they are here (London), moving to a larger house is not an option. Quite frankly, planners seem to have lost sight of the fact that houses are for living in. They have lost sight that houses must be put on land as well. Strange as on a programme this week, one planner was happily talking of the need for housing as a justification for building in a beauty spot near Aylesbury. I know of no beauty spots near Aylesbury. Then you don't know Aylesbury then, Bertie, I have been to Aylesbury many times and saw no beauty around it. Just plain boring fields crying to be built on. There again, being ultra sophisticated, I have high expectation of beauty. Bertie, unlike you, I don't find the local sink estate full of beauty. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Help: Planning application for two storey extension
IMM wrote:
Bertie, I have been to Aylesbury many times and saw no beauty around it. Just plain boring fields crying to be built on. There again, being ultra sophisticated, I have high expectation of beauty. So what part of Watford do you find beautiful? -- Toby. 'One day son, all this will be finished' |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Help: Planning application for two storey extension
"Toby" wrote in message ... IMM wrote: Bertie, I have been to Aylesbury many times and saw no beauty around it. Just plain boring fields crying to be built on. There again, being ultra sophisticated, I have high expectation of beauty. So what part of Watford do you find beautiful? None. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Help: Planning application for two storey extension
In article , IMM
writes wrote in message .. . In article , IMM writes "Ziggy" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 12:15:28 +0100, wrote: With house prices as they are here (London), moving to a larger house is not an option. Quite frankly, planners seem to have lost sight of the fact that houses are for living in. They have lost sight that houses must be put on land as well. Strange as on a programme this week, one planner was happily talking of the need for housing as a justification for building in a beauty spot near Aylesbury. I know of no beauty spots near Aylesbury. Then you don't know Aylesbury then, Bertie, I have been to Aylesbury many times and saw no beauty around it. Just plain boring fields crying to be built on. There again, being ultra sophisticated, I have high expectation of beauty. Bertie, unlike you, I don't find the local sink estate full of beauty. Just as I thought, you don't open your eyes, typical townie dragged up in an inner city flat. -- David |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Help: Planning application for two storey extension
wrote in message ... In article , IMM writes wrote in message .. . In article , IMM writes "Ziggy" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 12:15:28 +0100, wrote: With house prices as they are here (London), moving to a larger house is not an option. Quite frankly, planners seem to have lost sight of the fact that houses are for living in. They have lost sight that houses must be put on land as well. Strange as on a programme this week, one planner was happily talking of the need for housing as a justification for building in a beauty spot near Aylesbury. I know of no beauty spots near Aylesbury. Then you don't know Aylesbury then, Bertie, I have been to Aylesbury many times and saw no beauty around it. Just plain boring fields crying to be built on. There again, being ultra sophisticated, I have high expectation of beauty. Bertie, unlike you, I don't find the local sink estate full of beauty. Just as I thought, you don't open your eyes, typical townie dragged up in an inner city flat. Bertie, you are confused. You are a Philistine. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Help: Planning application for two storey extension
"IMM" wrote in message ...
"Ziggy" wrote in message ... On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 12:15:28 +0100, wrote: I've just had a letter from the local council saying that there have been no specific objections to the application but that we would have to set back the extension by 1 metre from the the existing house in order to get approval because "(it) would allow the extension to sit more comfortably with the parent dwelling ...". However the main purpose of this extension is to gain a double bedroom and reducing the size of this room by 1 metre would make it a single and useless to us. We haven't got much space at the back so I don't think it would be feasable to move the whole thing back by 1m. The property is not listed and we do not live in a conservation area. (It's an ordinary 1960's semi). Round here, upper storeys have to be set back 1 metre from the boundary. Effectively this renders them uneconomic, as they cost more to support the upper wall and give less room. The excuse is to prevent it looking like a terrace. This despite 40% of properties in the street already having such extensions and planning permission for just such an extension having been given in another street.. The council even tried to claim it was a conservation area when I appealed ( a waste of time as the appeal body even states most appeals fail in its literature). All the more galling when some detached houses here have been allowed to literally treble in size. With house prices as they are here (London), moving to a larger house is not an option. Quite frankly, planners seem to have lost sight of the fact that houses are for living in. They have lost sight that houses must be put on land as well. Strange as on a programme this week, one planner was happily talking of the need for housing as a justification for building in a beauty spot near Aylesbury. I know of no beauty spots near Aylesbury. As you would say, look harder. They exist, if you think they don't then you have to prove it. LOL MBQ |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Help: Planning application for two storey extension
"MBQ" wrote in message om... "IMM" wrote in message ... "Ziggy" wrote in message ... On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 12:15:28 +0100, wrote: I've just had a letter from the local council saying that there have been no specific objections to the application but that we would have to set back the extension by 1 metre from the the existing house in order to get approval because "(it) would allow the extension to sit more comfortably with the parent dwelling ...". However the main purpose of this extension is to gain a double bedroom and reducing the size of this room by 1 metre would make it a single and useless to us. We haven't got much space at the back so I don't think it would be feasable to move the whole thing back by 1m. The property is not listed and we do not live in a conservation area. (It's an ordinary 1960's semi). Round here, upper storeys have to be set back 1 metre from the boundary. Effectively this renders them uneconomic, as they cost more to support the upper wall and give less room. The excuse is to prevent it looking like a terrace. This despite 40% of properties in the street already having such extensions and planning permission for just such an extension having been given in another street.. The council even tried to claim it was a conservation area when I appealed ( a waste of time as the appeal body even states most appeals fail in its literature). All the more galling when some detached houses here have been allowed to literally treble in size. With house prices as they are here (London), moving to a larger house is not an option. Quite frankly, planners seem to have lost sight of the fact that houses are for living in. They have lost sight that houses must be put on land as well. Strange as on a programme this week, one planner was happily talking of the need for housing as a justification for building in a beauty spot near Aylesbury. I know of no beauty spots near Aylesbury. As you would say, look harder. They exist, if you think they don't then you have to prove it. LOL Prove to me there is beauty around Aylesbury. I'm sure many other would like to know too. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Help: Planning application for two storey extension
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 12:52:36 +0100, "IMM" wrote:
Prove to me there is beauty around Aylesbury. I'm sure many other would like to know too. http://www.chilternsaonb.org/default.asp ..andy To email, substitute .nospam with .gl |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Help: Planning application for two storey extension
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Help: Planning application for two storey extension
"rob w" wrote in message om... wrote in message . .. Hi, I recently applied for planning permission to build a two-storey extension on the side of my semi-detached house. There is an existent detached garage there which would be demolished to make way for the extension. The proposed extension would be inline with the exisiting house (i.e. not set forward or back of the current house). The house is right at the end of a row of semis so the extension side is not very close to another property. I've just had a letter from the local council saying that there have been no specific objections to the application but that we would have to set back the extension by 1 metre from the the existing house in order to get approval because "(it) would allow the extension to sit more comfortably with the parent dwelling ...". However the main purpose of this extension is to gain a double bedroom and reducing the size of this room by 1 metre would make it a single and useless to us. We haven't got much space at the back so I don't think it would be feasable to move the whole thing back by 1m. The property is not listed and we do not live in a conservation area. (It's an ordinary 1960's semi). The only other house in our street that has been extended recently did not have to have any "set back". (The houses are not long front to back). Does anyone have any practical suggestions that may help to solve this issue, please? Where can I find out more about this? Thanks in advance (Worried) I had exactly the same problem, i just went to planning, drawings in hand and had a meeting with them , problem solved it seemed as if you put up a reasonable arguement they will roll over, this happened three times duing the build of the extension and I won each time. Ive since built a self build and they where not as willing to talk on that but thats another story no pun intended! Rob I will bet I even know which LA you are in They have this crazy theory that setting back makes extentions subserviant Defeated that nonsense on appeal Tell me what area you are in then i might be able to give you a precedent number you can quote them |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Help: Planning application for two storey extension
In article , Nambucca wrote:
I will bet I even know which LA you are in They have this crazy theory that setting back makes extentions subserviant Somehow I doubt that you know which LA it is as loads of them have this policy: type "side extension setback planning" into Google and several references on the first page spell this out, e.g Trafford "EITHER a minimum space of 1m should be preserved between the extension and the party boundary to the side of the property, OR the front wall of the first floor of the extension should be set back at least 1m from the immediately adjoining part of the main front wall of the original dwelling. The above requirement may be relaxed if, because of a staggered or irregular arrangement of the dwellings in the street, the construction of the extension would not create an actual or potential terracing effect" Defeated that nonsense on appeal I don't doubt that in a particular case you might win on appeal, but I would only expect to win if you can argue that the general policy has been misapplied in the particular case being appealed. If you want real daftness wrt 2-storey side extensions, a relative's one was turned down because it represented an unacceptable extension into the Green Belt (the existing house was a small cottage in GB). A single storey side extension taking up the same footprint was allowed as the amount of additional floorspace was within permitted limits. -- Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Help: Planning application for two storey extension
"Tony Bryer" wrote in message ... In article , Nambucca wrote: I will bet I even know which LA you are in They have this crazy theory that setting back makes extentions subserviant Somehow I doubt that you know which LA it is as loads of them have this policy: type "side extension setback planning" into Google and several references on the first page spell this out, e.g Trafford "EITHER a minimum space of 1m should be preserved between the extension and the party boundary to the side of the property, OR the front wall of the first floor of the extension should be set back at least 1m from the immediately adjoining part of the main front wall of the original dwelling. The above requirement may be relaxed if, because of a staggered or irregular arrangement of the dwellings in the street, the construction of the extension would not create an actual or potential terracing effect" Defeated that nonsense on appeal I don't doubt that in a particular case you might win on appeal, but I would only expect to win if you can argue that the general policy has been misapplied in the particular case being appealed. If you want real daftness wrt 2-storey side extensions, a relative's one was turned down because it represented an unacceptable extension into the Green Belt (the existing house was a small cottage in GB). A single storey side extension taking up the same footprint was allowed as the amount of additional floorspace was within permitted limits. -- Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm well actually NO .......there was no special reasons etc why the set back was defeated at appeal .......just had a sensible Appeals Inspector and went round the area photographing all the extensions that were not setback .........all those that looked ghastly ........matched them to their planning numbers and plotted them on a map ........the Inspector did a tour of the area the night before the Informal hearing and we really did not need to try too hard to put our case The alternative was £4000 for an expert !!!!!! Its always worth doing your homework , taking photos of the Good the bad and the ugly ,with some time, thought and commonsense theres no reason why you cant win your case ........most of it gets done in the written submission you make anyway |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Help: Planning application for two storey extension
"IMM" wrote in message ...
Strange as on a programme this week, one planner was happily talking of the need for housing as a justification for building in a beauty spot near Aylesbury. I know of no beauty spots near Aylesbury. As you would say, look harder. They exist, if you think they don't then you have to prove it. LOL Prove to me there is beauty around Aylesbury. No, I'm going to keep it for myself and others who know how to appreciate it. You would only want to come and build on it. MBQ |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Help: Planning application for two storey extension
|
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Correct planning apllication forms (invalid application) | UK diy | |||
Illegal house extension demolished | UK diy |