Help: Planning application for two storey extension

[nospam]

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)

[Peter Crosland]

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.

[Hugh]

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

[sPoNiX]

Yes, point out that other extensions don't have the 1m set back. This possibly sets a prescident.

sPoNIX

[David]

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

[David]

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

[IMM]

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.

[David]

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

[Tony Bryer]

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.

[Alan G]

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

[Ziggy]

[Ziggy]

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. 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.

[IMM]

They have lost sight that houses must be put on land as well.

I know of no beauty spots near Aylesbury.

>

[G&M]

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.

[David Byers]

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'!

[David]

In article , IMM writes

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

[nospam]

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.

[nospam]

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.

[IMM]

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.

[Toby]

So what part of Watford do you find beautiful?