No planning consent - what do you think?

[Penners]

News this morning that, from next month, people will be able to build extensions to their homes with PP. Apparently this won't apply to listed buildings or conservation areas (thank goodness), but nevertheless I find it a worrying prospect. In effect, it means that aesthetic considerations will go out of the window, giving people carte blanche to build whatever they like (within size limitations).

Local authorities will have discretion over whether to relax the rules, so I can already hear the phrase "postcode lottery" being bandied about. Building regs will still apply.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2779293/Householders-can-convert-lofts-and-extend-homes-without-planning-permission.html

 

[middi]

DIY small extensions with flat felt roof will be all the rage, AGAIN !!!.

........" GOD SAVE THE QUEEN"....... (or should it be the labour party)

Still, all the illegal immigrants will be happy

 

[Penners]

What a sceptic you are Middi! :wink:

Actually, are flat roofed extensions still permissable under Building Regs? Given the problems that are inherent in flat roofs, I'd be surprised.

 

[Flyfisher]

it means that aesthetic considerations will go out of the window, giving people carte blanche to build whatever they like (within size limitations).

I heard on the radio that this exemption was just for single storey rear extensions, in which case aesthetic considerations are less important, presumably. But, overall, I think it's a good thing. Sure, some people will 'abuse' it and create ugly, out-of-keeping monstrosities (although taste is a personal choice etc etc) but that's the problem with freedom, people end up doing what they like with it.

 

[Penners]

I heard on the radio that this exemption was just for single storey rear extensions.

That's not what the Telegraph says:

...up to two storeys...

And of course, if it's in the newspapers, it must be true. :?

 

[Flyfisher]

Putting my trust in the BBC rather than the newspapers, you're right about the two-storey thing: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7609896.stm.
More worryingly, perhaps, the article states that single-storey extensions will be allowed in conservation areas. Perhaps that's the bit I heard/mis-heard on the radio. New placcy windows all round then . . .

 

[Lime]

From what I've seen the majority of rear house extensions were never approved by the planning authorities nor did building control see them either.
At present certain building is allowed without planning permission anyway so this change would only be supplementing that which already exists.
It appears that the new restrictions are still quite restraining on any "wild" building.

 

[DaveBrigg]

Still, all the illegal immigrants will be happy

Why? Do people come to this country illegally in order to buy property and build flat roofed extensions on the back?

 

[middi]

Still, all the illegal immigrants will be happy

Why? Do people come to this country illegally in order to buy property and build flat roofed extensions on the back?

The thing is , Dave , the legal ones wich are already here, and own a house, have lots of " friends" back home which want to come here illegally, my devious mind was thinking that the "dodgy" legal immigrant ( not so much of the "dodgy" in my case !!) could quickly "wack up" flat roof extensions for their mates. It was just the sceptic in me Dave, nothing serious :wink:

 

[FamilyWiggs]

DIY small extensions with flat felt roof will be all the rage, AGAIN !!!.

........" GOD SAVE THE QUEEN"....... (or should it be the labour party)

Middi - thankfully they're going to need more than divine intervention to stave off electoral obliteration.

I wonder if your average Telegraph reader has twigged that the price he has to pay for an easier planning process for his (or her) new kitchen extension, is an inability to object when they put a new Tesco's, windfarm, or animal renderers at the end of the street?

 

[Penners]

inability to object when they put a new Tesco's, windfarm, or animal renderers at the end of the street?

Thass bin refused ut Sheringham, bor.

 

[ilikecobwebs]

I've seen this coming for a long time. Months back, it was discussed on several anti-airport expansion websites, centred around the government's plans to relax the planning laws so that they (the govt) could build whatever they like... at the same time effectively gagging opposition from local councils and people in affected areas. The "carrot" was, of course, that relaxed planning laws would allow people to build extensions without pp. I also fear for what people will bung up. Looking at our neighbours down the road, I don't think they've got any more room for box-like additions; the Victorian cottage is already lost under a plastic conservatory at the rear, a dormer attic window, a box dormer on the kitchen roof and a mish-mash of roofs for porches. Their neighbours likewise. North Somerset blow hot and cold with their attitudes to developments; they nitpick over minor stuff and yet have allowed some of the ugliest extensions to village properties one might ever hope (not) to see. One house down the road from me has got extensions that total a greater area than the original cottage.....all done over many years. Clearly it'll be more good news for the plastic salesmen, bet they can't wait to get started. It does make you wonder whether upvc/DG companies and the government have got some deal going between them........

 

[Penners]

Are flat roofed extensions still permissable under Building Regs? Does anyone know?

 

[Gareth Hughes]

Are flat roofed extensions still permissable under Building Regs? Does anyone know?

as long as it meets the requirement, yes. (and the requirements do noy include "must have a pitched roof")

 

[Penners]

Thanks, Gareth. No particular reason for asking - just interested.

 

[Nemesis]

New placcy windows all round then . . .

No restrictions on plastic doors and windows in many conservation areas. Never has been.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

Here's the new document
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2008/uksi_20082362_en_1

Article 1(5) land, mentioned in various places in the text as being where these rights do not apply or are more stringent, is: a National Park;an area of outstanding natural beauty; an area designated as a conservation area under section 69 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990[27](designation of conservation areas); an area specified by the Secretary of State and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for the purposes of section 41(3) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981[28] (enhancement and protection of the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside); the Broads; and, now, World Heritage Sites

and here's the covering letter that went to planning departments (incidentally, we've received all this a mere fortnight before the changes come into force, hurrah for forward planning)

AMENDMENTS TO THE PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT REGIME FOR HOUSEHOLDERS

Attached is a copy of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)(Amendment)(No.2)(England) Order 2008. This was laid before Parliament today and will come into force on 1 October. The Order amends Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (the GPDO) and will put in place a new permitted development regime for householders. The Order also adds World Heritage Sites to the list of article 1(5) land thus affording them the same levels of protection from permitted development as other designated areas such as conservation areas.

The legislation represents a significant change to the current system and we would be grateful, therefore, if you could forward this e-mail and attachment to members of your team who will need to be aware of it.

As you may recall, the Government issued a consultation paper on proposed changes to householder permitted development rights on 21 May 2007. Following that, a Government response to consultation was issued on 30 November which set out how changes would be taken forward. In the most part the conditions for and limits to permitted development proposed then have been translated into the legislation necessary to amend the GPDO. However, there are some minor changes from the November proposals, which are explained below. The main areas of change are dealt with below.

Restrictions on Principal and Side Elevations

The regime to be introduced imposes additional control over development to, or extending beyond, a principal elevation of a dwellinghouse. It was originally envisaged that this would apply to the elevation facing onto and being visible from a highway. However, this would lead to occasional, practical difficulties in determining whether something was visible or not, particularly where visibility changed over time. The Order, therefore, simply specifies that a principal elevation fronts a highway. A similar approach is also taken where there are restrictions in relation to side elevations.

Restrictions on Side-facing Windows

In order to minimise the risk of neighbouring properties being overlooked, the Government response suggested a condition on permitted development that side facing windows above one storey be obscure-glazed, but that top opening would be allowed. Having considered this further, we have decided to make this restriction more precise by stating that any opening part of the window should be more than 1.7m above the level of the floor. This also ensures that side-facing Velux windows that might be inserted in a roof could be permitted development subject to meeting this restriction. This restriction would apply to both “ordinary” extensions and roof extensions and alterations.

Restrictions on Outbuildings

The Government response indicated that to control the potential impact that large outbuildings can have on others there would be a restriction on the size of outbuildings of 20 square metres for gardens of less than 100 square metres and 30 square metres for larger gardens. However this restriction could have created a liability for compensation being payable by a local authority if they subsequently turned down, or granted subject to condition, an application for something that had previously been permitted development. Therefore, Class E of the Order no longer includes such a restriction.

Paving of Front Gardens

The Government’s “Water Strategy”, published in February, set out the intention to ensure that hard surfaces could not be installed at the front of a property that is forward of the principal elevation under permitted development if they rendered the area impermeable. It will not apply to development to the side of properties or at the rear. The Order grants permitted development rights where either porous materials are used or provision is made to direct any run-off to a surface or area that allows the water to drain away naturally within the curtilage of the property, for example, to a garden border. The permeability condition applies where the area to be installed is more than 5 square metres. It applies both to new surfaces and to the repair and replacement of an existing surface.

Roof Alterations

The Government response suggested that permitted development rights should be subject to a roof alteration projecting no more than 150mm above the roof slope. In addition, alterations would not be permitted development on the roof of a principal or side elevation on article 1(5) land.

However, the existing rights for roof alterations are only restricted in terms of there not being “a material alteration to the shape” of the roof. Given that we are not aware of there being any significant adverse impact of this approach (in sensitive areas) and the fact that we are seeking to create a generally more permissive regime, we now propose that roof alterations should continue to be permitted development on the principal and side elevations on article 1(5) land.


Solar Panels

In Order to ensure consistency across different Parts of the GPDO, this Order also includes an amendment to Part 40. This removes the existing restriction on solar panels on the roof of a principal or side elevation in a conservation area or World Heritage Site. As explained above, given that roof alterations are currently generally permitted development in designated areas, such as conservation areas, we do not believe that given the Government’s desire to encourage the take-up of microgeneration, that solar panels should be restricted in this way.

Chimneys, Flues and Soil and Vent Pipes

The Order inserts a new Class into the GPDO to make the installation, alteration or replacement of chimneys, flues and soil and vent pipes permitted development subject to them being less than 1m above the highest part of the roof. In addition, they will not be permitted development on a principal or side elevation on article 1(5) land. This permission is provided for in a new, separate Class G. Given this separate, express provision for flues etc, they are specifically excluded as permitted development for ordinary extensions and roof extensions and alterations (in Classes A, B and C).

Further Information

The commentary above gives a brief explanation of the more significant changes that have been made to the Government proposals since November last year. It is not intended to be a detailed explanation of the changes.

The Planning Portal has further detail of the specific conditions and limits provided for by the Order. This is available at http://www.planningportal.gov.uk . We envisage that that the Portal’s guidance will provide the initial reference point for householders wanting to know what they can do to their own homes without applying for planning permission.

The Planning Portal will also be making its Interactive House tool available to all planning authorities for hosting on their websites. It will also provide extensive links to all the new guidance available on the Portal for householder permitted development and will send authorities an information pack with instructions on how to download links and the Interactive House in the next week.

 

[Edwardia]

18 out of 20 Edwardian terrace houses on my side of the road were built with flat roof kitchens out the back, I live in one of the 2 with pitched roofs There is a covenant on the front of the house which many people have ignored One of my near neighbours is converting his loft and has put French windows out onto his flat roof.. am waiting for the decking to appear..

 

[Penners]

Thanks, Gareth. It's good to have the definitive information, rather than press interpretations of same.

 

[middi]

Something dos not sound right with this.It looks to me that if I have a 300 foot garden ( especially in a secluded not overlooked by neighbours area etc,,), i could "plonk" a series of small extensions, every year or so, untill the garden is full up as long as I meet building regs,

( Blimey!!, 50 pounds a week for 50 extensions ...? I am rich!!, I AM RICH !!!!!)