New PD Rights regime - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

Hi, the main problem is the lack of interpretation of the terms used: principal elevation, side elevation, and a return to the pre 1995 term of "fronts a highway". There are only two terms interpreted in the new regs, and one of those relates to "terrace house". Is this term used in the new Part 1 at all??? Another issue that we have is with Part G. We have thousands of predominantly terraced properties in our 19 Conservation Areas. Planning permission will now be required in most cases for any works to instal, alter or replace a soil and vent pipe. That is going to be fun to tell our public, £150 application fee plus drawings etc. to do the work! I have recommended that we make a LDO urgently unless DCLG realise what they've done and change Part G, unless of course they want more planning applications.

I have had a quick look at the new regs and spotted a couple of other problems, an outbuilding can now be within 5m of the house and still take up 50% of the curtilage and that a roof extension does not have to be 20cm up from the eaves if it is not practicable. These regs may reduce the number of planning applications but not the number of complaints that a Council will receive. Has anyone else spotted other potential problems?

Oops, sorry DCLG, found the reference to terrace house in Class B. Is my reading of Class E correct in that an outbuilding can take up 50% of the curtilage even in Conservation Araes?

Hello Have other people in LPA's that have large areas of Green Belt/Open Countryside done any modelling on what will be now be PD under a combination of Classes A, B and E in relation to dwellings in large curtilages. We have done some basic sketches showing what can be 'creatively' achieved under the new PD rights and it appears that a combination of outbuildings and extensions could result in enlargements several times bigger than the original dwelling. Whilst I appreciate that there will still be the 'incidental' test, it seems that Local Plan policies restricting the % increase in domestic extensions in the GB/open countryside will be become pointless and the term 'disproportionate' in PPG 2 will have now to be read in the context of what the government consider to be 'proportionate' within the context of the provisions they have set out within the PD regime ? Anyone else's thoughts on this issue would be very welcome

Does anyone agree with me that the changes to Class A now mean that extensions to listed buildings that meet these criteria now no longer need planning permission?

Carol Yes it would appear that outbuildings can be erected in Conservation Areas (article 1(5) land) up to 50% of the curtilage as long as they are not between the side elevation and the boundary!

Carol, Don't forget that the GPDO only tells you when development does or doesn't need a planning application. It doesn't define development, we have s.55 for that. So if a SVP does not materially affect the appearance of the building, regardless of where it is sited it falis to be development and so is outside of the GPDO permitted development scheme entirely.

Does anybody have any thoughts on what is meant by the phrase in ClassE, re artile 1(5) land, E3 'situated on land between a wall forming a side elevation of the dwellinghouse and the boundary'? Is it a strip of land from the front boundary to the rear, or is it specifically between the side wall and the boundary? My authority took the second interpretation until we read class F, F1(a) 'on land between a wall forming the principal elevation of the dwelling and a highway' which (based on the interactive house on the planning portal) would appear to mean the whole of the frontage of the site, including areas not directly between the primary wall of the house and the highway. Any thoughts?

In response to a number of the points posted so far: "principle elevation" and "side elevation" may be less problematic than seem at first sight: in A.1(d) "principle elevation" and "side elevation" are used in conjunction with the words "extend beyond a wall which". By using the indefinite article in front of "wall" allowance is made for there being more that one wall forming the "principle elevation" or "side elevation". Thus if there are two (or more) "walls" which are not co-planer but which nevertheless contribute to forming the "principle elevation" then neither of these may be extended beyond by any development. A similar comment applies to A.1(h) & A.2(b) and to a lesser extent, A.3(b) In respect of B.1(b), the use of the word "any" before "existing roof slope which forms the principle elevation..." again provides for there being more than one, none of which may be extended beyond. This is more precise than SI 1995 No 418's B.1(b) and therefore more helpful. A similar comment applies to B.2(c) & C.2, although these paras. may turn out to suffer from the inclusion of the words "floor of the room" where such a window is situated over a stairwell---which will commonly be the case. E.1(b) uses the phrasing "forward of a wall forming......." to provide for, effectively, the exclusion of development in the whole of a 'front' garden irrespective of the presence and postion or otherwise of a highway, whereas, slightly less helpfully, F.1(a)---presumably in trying to mean the same thing---uses the phrasing "between a wall forming...." The difference is that "forward" in E.1(b) can reasonably be construed to imply "forward" of an 'alignment' of the "wall" and thus be applied to exclude development in any side regions of a front garden. However, "between" is more exact in any ordinary sense of the meaning of a word: it could lead to disagreement that a side area of front garden in line with an area of garden to the side of the house lies "between a wall forming the principle elevation of the dwellinghouse and a highway.." Its possible for player A to be "between" players B & C but not if A is sufficiently to the side of the gap between B & C, whereas both A & B can both be "forward" of C no matter what their juxtaposition. That, however, is not an argument I would wish to have to put to M'lord! Given that one of the purposes of the limitations and conditions in Class F is to minimise surface water run-off it would seem likely that the parliamentary draftsmen (woops, persons) intended to achieve an effect similar to E.1(b) but with the additional reference to highway. In respect of the query on E.3, because E.1(b) already precludes land in the front garden (see above) such land would not fall to be considered under E.3. Limitation E.3 uses the word "between" to identify land situated between the "side elevation" and the "boundary" and it can only extend as far rearwards as the side elevation itself extends rearwards: there have to be two things for it to be "between". CLG/WYG's "Householder Development Consents Review Implementation of Recommendations" proposed on page 103 limiting the "maximum combined ground coverage of all outbuildings to be 30sq.m if the private garden area exceeds 100 sq.m or 20 sq.m if the private garden area is less than 100 sq.m". However, this strict new area limitation did not make its way into SI 2008 No 2362. The new Order simply kept the old Order's 50% rule and removed its previous 10 cu.m limit in article1(5) areas. ................. On a new point, "the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse" could lead to disagreement on meaning. Again we need to refer to the CLG/WYG paper to see that they have thought about and taken account of where a "rear wall" may be stepped, such as on the rear wings of typical terrace/semi housing of the Victorian/Edwarding era. The document proposed at 8.4, page 100 that "if the rear wall is stepped, the limitation on the depth of extension will similarly be stepped" and goes on to illustrate an example at Figure 60, page 101. The difficulty in A.1(e) comes, in my view, from the use of the definite article in front of the word "rear". Had they written "a rear wall..." it would have more readily catered for the "stepped" arrangement clearly intended. As it is, how would forum members interpret "the rear wall...." as the defining starting point for a rear extension dimension? Of course, we could all wait patiently for a new Circular..........but there isn't going to be one, I'm told.

Here's one for you: Class A allows for the alteration of a dwelling house The conditions attached to the development permitted by Class A include at A.3 (b) that any upper floor window located in a wall or roofslope forming a side elevation of the dwellinghouse shall be obscure glazed and non-opening, subject to the 1.7 metre height point. Thus it would appear that for the first time, the alteration of an existing dwelling by the insertion of a window in the upper floor side wall or roof will now require permission (assuming it is a material alteration to the external appearance of the building) unless it is obscure glazed and non-opening. This may be an unintended extension of powers, as the original report on extending PD rights referred to having these limitations only on the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse - but there is no mention of this condition applying only to the enlarged part of the dwelling in the SI. Any thoughts?

One aspect that we're particularly unclear about is for rural properties whose principal elevation doesnt front a highway - there are many houses down private drives in our green belt areas whose principal elevation faces towards open countryside rather than towards a highway. It would appear from A.1 (d) that permission is only required for enlargement of the dwelling where it would both extend beyond a wall which fronts a highway and forms either the principal or side elevation, thereby letting through potentially huge extensions beyond a wall forming a principal elevation if there is no relationship of this particular elevation with a highway. Any views?

I have done some 3d diagrams for my team... perhaps they will be of help to others... use them freely. PS In relation to Mike's comment... if we consider windows to be development, as they are not included in their own right, then the insertion of a window in an EXISTING wall would need permission, unless it is obscure glazed etc. The definition under class A is enlargement, improvement or other ALTERATION of a dwellinghouse and surely the insertion of a window affects the appearance of the building... any views?

PPS... forgot to say... it was late in the night when i did these drawings,,, and had had a little too much plonk... so if there are any errors... please advise. Phill

View from DCLG on windows in existing side elevations is this: An upper-floor side-facing window on a new extension would have to comply with condition A.3(b). Any new upper-floor side-facing window inserted in an existing wall of the house would also have to comply with A.3(b) (assuming that it would materially affect the external appearance of the building which we imagine in most cases it would). Whether the replacement of an existing window was caught would be then subject to whether it was "development" at all ie whether there was a material change to the external appearance of the building. As always, whether the replacement results in a material change would be a matter of fact and degree. On a separate point, Phil, I'm not sure that the defintion you have used as width in your useful diagrams is right. Others of us in Wiltshire think that given its context, the width means the side of the house, not the front.

What's the general view on works that would have been okay under the old regime, but won't be under the new? Would they have to be substantially complete by 1/10 to benefit from the old pd rights, or merely commenced before 1/10?

We think that the reasonable view is that if the development commenced before 1/10/08 then it should be subject to the old GPDO. It would be unreasonable to require somebody to comply with new regulations which weren't in force at the time they commenced, especially if they were near to substantial completion on 1/10/08.

Hi Guys... (all genders inferred 8¬) ) Alison - Alan: We would tend to agree. We would look at any existing work against the GDPO and take a view as to whether it was expedient to take action... probably not... we would look silly at court or in front of the inspector. Mike: Respects to the Wiltshire crew. I must admit to being originally trained as a surveyor. To that profession width is across the principal face, depth is its dimensions perpendicular to that (what planners often call gable width) and height is obvious. I see the purpose of the GDPO is to restrict linear development, hence the draconian restrictions on side extensions. I’m happy to be proved wrong, but I feel that our interpretation is in line with that… why oh why can’t they just define these things…. Phill

Hello all. We've set up a "community of practice" to create a bit of structure where these things can be hammered out. The web forum is good for reasonably linear conversations, but there are dozens of issues here. I've taken the liberty of copying & pasting bits from this forum, responses I've seen from CLG, a presentation that was made to the ALBPO and some of the questions that came out of our work on the 'expert system'. The link is here http://communities.idea.gov.uk/c/929137/home.do Your existing email/password combo should work. You'll go straight through if you have a ".gov.uk" email address - others will have to apply to join. (I'll wave everyone through) We're going to publicise this next week. Just thought you might like a sneak preview. An opportunity to put questions / voice opinions first. The intention is to use the CoP to get some consensus around what "width" means (for example) and then create some notes / FAQs both for the benefit of LPAs and users. I haven't bothered putting a strawman together yet, as there are some real fundamentals that are still murky. Regards, Richard PS Read the "read this first" blog post first !

As an agent advising clients on the new PD we are finding the new rules very ambiguous. Height of eaves - underside do we assume? It is a shame that the new rules are advocating an influx of those hideous wrap around dormers and yet will limit buildings within the garden. By nature people will seek to put these builidngs near to the boundary and now that a building can be no higher than 2.5 metres within 2 metres of the boundary will result in an influx of applications or enforcement! I understand the need to reduce impact and overbearing influence on buildings near the boundary but couldn't this have been better worded to avoid gables within 2 metres of the boundary? 2.5 metres external height will give an internal ceiling height no greater than 2.1 metres, more or less the top of the door frame height. Long live "The Borrowers"! The Interactive House on planning portal actually shows a garage which, if I have interpreted the new rules correctly, needs planning permission. Refer to Class E.1(d)(ii) Interesting that the Interactive House demonstrates a side facing velux which clearly opens at a height much lower than 1.7 metres (I generously estimate that it will be mid-calf height) from the internal floor level. I believe it is misleading and the information box that pops up does not mention opening height of the window being a restrictive factor. Maybe planners around the country can tell me, as an agent, how problematic sideward facing previous PD windows/veluxes have been, surely nothing like the complaints about dormers? Also a difficult one for you to enforce against as clearly a cross section will need to be provided to demonstrate its opening height off the internal floor level. Refer to Class C.2(b) The new P.D. Rights was a golden opportunity to regulate dormers and relax on other areas but overall I feel it has given a green light to poor roof dormer extensions and sought to restrict other areas that were far less problematic. I have a client who has an existing flat roofed extension 3.02m out from the back wall of the dwellinghouse on a semi detached dwelling which she wishes to change to a pitched roof.She also wants to erect a modest replacement pitched roof garage at the bottom of the garden within 2 metres of the boundary. If she did the work today both are PD, come Wednesday both require planning consent. I do not think this is what the new PD intended to achieve. I concur that the new PD Rights may lead to fewer applications but an increase in enforcement and certificate of lawfulness applications. Any feedback greatly appreciated.

The discussion so far confirms my view that the changes contain a lot ambiguities. I wrote to Mr Garrett at DCLG (the contact name on the covering letter sending the new SI) on 18 September requesting clarification (copy below). Surprisingly (!) I have had neither acknowledgement or reply. In view of the lack of clarity, we at Castle Morpeth are interpreting the Order strictly - i.e if it looks as if pp could be needed, we say it is needed. Better that way than to say sometinmg is pd and find out we were wrong when it's built and the neighbour is complaining! I have also asked the RTPI to press for clarification. Dear Mr Garrett We would be grateful if you could clarify the following matters: A1(c) Does the extension need permission if it has any eaves higher than any eaves on the existing house? The question arises in cases where there are eaves of various heights (e.g where the existing house is both single and two storeys). Also, should eaves over dormer windows be taken into consideration? A1(d) and elsewhere 1. Is the principal elevation any elevation fronting a highway? If so, there are some houses that have more than one principal elevation, for example on corner plots and in terraces which have a highway both at the front and at the back. 2 Some houses (e.g on backland plots, on farms or in barn conversions) do not front any highway. Does this mean that they have no principal elevation? In such cases does that mean there is no limit to how far they can be extended on a wall that is not a side or rear wall? 3 Does (d) mean any wall thus described, that is, not just the forwardmost wall, as in the current GPDO? A1(e) and (f) Is the reference to extending beyond the rear wall mean any rear wall? The issue arises in all cases where the rear of the house is not built as a single wall, but is cranked. A1(f) Taken literally, “opposite” appears to refer to the dwellinghouse that is opposite the rear wall of the dwellinghouse being extended, but we think the meaning is that the 7 metres is measured from the rear wall to the boundary that it faces. Are we correct? A1(h) If the original dwellinghouse was of varying width, which width applies? E2 Is “the dwellinghouse” here the existing house or the original house? F1(b) Is the 5 sq.m. cumulative or not? That is, can a hard surface area be enlarged in successive extensions of less that 5 sq.m. and thus avoid the need for planning permission? We look forward to your response. Jack Chown Development Control Manager Castle Morpeth Borough Council 01670 794681

With reference to hard surfacing, is anyone clear about where block paving now stands ? I think the general assumption, prior, to the legislation being issued, was that it would now be controlled as a non-porous material - however the Government press-release, and the 'Guidance on the permeable surfacing of front gardens' document both seem to suggest not. One refers to 'concrete paving paving with gaps' as an example of a permeable surface, and the other refers to material with open voids 'around the edges of blocks'. All block paving has 'gaps' by definition, around each block - it may be only a millimetre or so but given time weeds will grow through - so when is a gap too narrow to count ? On this basis we are currently assuming that regular block paving on sand is lawful, and only blockwork which interlocks or is in some way sealed, needs consent. Any differing views ?

I think the use of 'principle elevation' is very ambigous and definately needs defining. Most of our work is within the Peak District National Park and they have told us that they consider the principle elevation to be the elevation facing the highway. I personally disagree with this as the new PD regime (in Part A.1 (d)) states that development is not permitted if it extends beyond a wall which (i) fronts a highway, AND (ii) forms either a principle elevation or a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse. Surely if the principle elevation always fronts a highway then there would be no need to specify that in point (i)? Further to that, a side elevation could never front a highway as if it did it would be a principle elevation and not a side elevation. I can think of 100s of examples in the rural area i live and work in where what i consider to be the principle elevation (the formal, structured and most aesthetically pleasing elevation of a property) is not fronting a highway.

There are many excellent points being made here. To repeat my earlier post - we've created a community of practice for this discussion. There are just too many issues to make sense of in one thread on our forum. It is not restricted to planning authorities, so if you have a problem with the way in which an LPA is intending to apply the regs you can make your case in a friendly but more private environment. There are over 200 people signed up, and I am hopeful that there will be some contributions from some of the main sector groups in the near future. http://communities.idea.gov.uk/c/929137/home.do

Definition of Principle Elevation and relationship with highway: The LPA I work for refused permission for an application for a garage to the rear of a property on highway safety grounds (there is a highway at the rear of the curtiledge of the property as well as at the front). However, under E.1 (b) of the GPDO 2008, it would appear that there is a possibility that the proposal is now permitted development, dependent on the interpretation of the term 'principle elevation'. Can there be more than one principle elevation on a dwellinghouse when there is a highway at the front and rear of the property? If a dwellinghouse can only have one principle elevation, then in this case, the principle elevation would presumably be the front of the property, in which case the proposed garage would be p.d despite there being known highway safety issues (less than 5.5 metres between garage and highway). Any feedback appreciated!

Unless I have got this wrong, Class A does not apply to any alteration or extension that includes a chimney, flue or soil and vent pipe. So any extension incorporating a boiler, toilet, bathroom or even possibly kitchen is not PD? The flues etc themselves are usually PD under class G.!!! (or not development)

peter - in the traditions of the best cliff hangers there is an answer... and it's in the community of practice. Use the link above and search the forum for "developments spanning classes"

I have a specific PD query I would like to raise... Whereby an outbuilding (eg. a Victorian toilet) is located 3 metres from the rear wall of a semi-detached house, and an applicant proposes to construct an extension up to this outbuilding (effectively creating a 'link' extension), would it be permitted development?...or moreover...would the existing outbuilding count towards calculating the length to which the extension would protrude from the rear wall? Any feedback welcome!...

Hi Can anyone inform me, or clarify, under Class A Part A.1 (i) it states that development not permitted if it would consist of or include (iv) an alteration to any part of the roof of the dwellinghouse ! does this mean that no alteration can be carried out to a roof ? does this not conflict with Class B.

Lee has joined 437 other people in our community of practice. Welcome !

HAS SOMEONE WRITTEN DOWN DEFINITIVE ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS PERSONS HAVE RAISED SINCE 1st October 2008

To Richard Crawley, Consider this case, detached house right on the 'internal' corner of cul de sac, old garage built behind property down a drive too narrow for a modern family car. Drive cannot be made wider due to the boundary line of next property on same side (of the corner) of the cul de sac Logical place for a new detached garage would be adajcent to the garage of the property at 90 degrees, i.e. on the other side of the corner. Street scene would still show all of the principal elevation of the detached house, but according to your diagram this grounds for rejection as PD, because of being forward of the principal elevation. On such an internal corner, where does the line of the principal elevation end? Where it intersects the building line of the princpal elevation of the adjacent builing at 90 degrees, somewhere down the garden, or a them's the rules, never!

I have a question about Class A1(i)(iv). We have a bungalow in an AONB extended to the front but never to the rear so the original rear wall is in tact. All measurements with the various boundaries are within tolerance and there are no highways or other issues to prevent a 4 m extension of the whole house to the rear. Problem is, if we put a pitched roof on it and attempt to join this to the existing roof, does this constitute an alteration to the existing roof? Technically opening up the existing roof to join on would be an alteration of some description as would the continuation of the side plane of the existing roof into the side plane of the new roof . Common sense tells me this can't be right as it would effectively put all pitched roof extensions on article 1(5) land into Class B, which then takes away PD, while at the same time giving carte blanche to flat roof extensions in sensitive areas. My take on Class B is that it is specifically aimed at the creation of new dwelling space "in" the roof area of either the enlargement or the original dwelling ( eg dormers ) and not the incidental roof covering of single storey extensions. Also another issue: A3 says you cannot use render and yet the original house is rendered so how are we supposed to blend the extension in using similar materials? These are the main concerns. Any thoughts gratefully received.

I can see this thread is twitching back into life. I still encourage you to post your questions on the CoP (address below). There are some very talented people lurking there, one of whom might offer their opinion. There is also some very good advice contributed by one of our colleagues - I recommend it. http://communities.idea.gov.uk/c/929137/home.do Let me know if you are messed about trying to register (for free) or login. regards, Richard

Thanks Richard I have applied to join CoP as advised and await hearing. I sent you an e-mail through the link yesterday evening. Regards Claire Bolton

can I suggest that everyone add this link to their favourites: http://www.planningjungle.com/ On this site, Steve Speed of Lambeth provides a running commentary of the PDO, along with full copies of the competing appeal decisions as to interpretations