Two Storey Side Extension, To Step Back or To Not Step Back?

[HHHamster]

Hi All, looking for some guidance please.

I've recently received feedback (which we already knew was likely) for a pre-application submission for a two-storey side extension suggesting the new front elevation needs to be stepped back from the existing/original property, it's a standard 3-bedroom semi. I understand this requirement is part of the standard guidelines both nationally and locally to avoid "terracing affect", which supposedly does not still occur if you step back by 150mm, anyway....

There are many other instances of houses exactly the same or similar to ours, with the same/similar positioning to other houses etc. within 500m from our property whereby owners have been granted permission for two storey side extensions level with the existing fronts. The approval dates for these vary from around year 2000 up to the latest I could find being 2019. I provided examples of these to the planners at submission.

The planners guidebook is dated 2020 and they are stating that these are the guidelines which are now followed, however, the requirement to step back a property (I believe) was also included in previous versions.

My query is, do I have any rights given that other properties in the area have previously been granted approval or do I have to accept that I need to start bolting bits onto the side of my house like a badly designed Lego set?

Thanks in advance for any help!

 

[^woody^]

You should follow your local planning policy, and planners can legitimately refuse permission if you don't - and an appeal would be difficult.

However, if you can demonstrate that a flush extension will not create terracing, or design it as such, then that would be valid and then its down to the planner's opinion, and an appeal may have merit.

Check those other extensions you cite and see if the approval was different to what was built

 

[Bouy]

Other examples don't set precedents so as woody says it's down to persuasion and/or appeal

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

I'd argue that generally a setback looks better anyway, it does tend to reduce the terracing effect.

 

[Bouy]

I'd argue that generally a setback looks better anyway, it does tend to reduce the terracing effect.

Are you a BC

 

[wessex101]

The planning design guidelines are not usually actual planning policy. The planning policy is usually something very vague and ambiguous like all extensions should demonstrate "good design". The guidelines are usually just a suggested means of achieving that good design.
If you can demonstrate numerous examples where the guidelines have not been followed in the local area, even if those guidelines have been updated, then that can be good grounds for an appeal. There are a couple of standard details in the guidelines issued by a local authority near me that are so frequently ignored that they are regularly overturned on appeal.
I would say though that I agree with Freddie, a modest set back on a side extension usually looks much better.

 

[HHHamster]

The neighbouring property is slightly angled to ours and set forward by over 2m though there are no guidelines when it should or shouldn't apply so I guess they just blanket it for any semi. There's detached houses in the area which look terrace-y after each side has extended to the boundary though I find it interesting the rule doesn't apply to them, shame I can't afford a detached (

As you say @wessex101 it is all very vague and ambiguous. We had to explain how we wouldn't be affecting our neighbours light with a 4m rear extension though I noticed a house 5 doors up from ours was previously granted approval for a 5.5m rear extension after literally submitting a photo of two hand drawn squares on a paper in plan view with one saying "house" and one saying "extension". It was put forward for approval by a senior worker in the planning office, maybe who you know helps...

I'll bite the bullet and set back a small amount unless anyone has any experience of successfully appealing anything similar.

Thanks All

 

[wessex101]

The neighbouring property is slightly angled to ours and set forward by over 2m though there are no guidelines when it should or shouldn't apply so I guess they just blanket it for any semi. There's detached houses in the area which look terrace-y after each side has extended to the boundary though I find it interesting the rule doesn't apply to them, shame I can't afford a detached (

If the neighbouring property is angled and set forward that will probably mitigate any terracing affect. It might be worth taking a punt and submitting the application with the side extension flush with the view that you've still got your resubmission application if it is refused then you can try the set back on the second attempt (or go to appeal).

 

[Diver Fred]

Will you be applying for Planning Permission? With architects drawings? That will help but make sure the submitted plans are not overdrawn (i.e. Does not have lots of superfluous lines representing brickwork etc on it). Mate had plans like that which where rejected; the architect had followed the building line from previous works which has been passed previously, only difference was the amount of detail, less in the case of the passed plans.
He had to setback his extention.

 

[jeds]

It's one of those where some planning officers will swear blind it's policy, but they won't be able to point to where that policy is. It is usually because they were told it is policy by a senior planner when they were starting out, learning the ropes. It isn't really policy at all although, as wessex101 said, many LPAs have it in their guidance.

I think I know where it comes from. I recall some years ago that a .gov guidance document said something like; 'it is usually desirable for extensions to look 'subservient' to the main house'. This has transformed into; 'extensions MUST be subservient to the main house'.

 

[^woody^]

Some councils adopt guidelines as policy.

It's all in the wording

 

[jono_h]

It's one of those where some planning officers will swear blind it's policy, but they won't be able to point to where that policy is. It is usually because they were told it is policy by a senior planner when they were starting out, learning the ropes. It isn't really policy at all although, as wessex101 said, many LPAs have it in their guidance.

I think I know where it comes from. I recall some years ago that a .gov guidance document said something like; 'it is usually desirable for extensions to look 'subservient' to the main house'. This has transformed into; 'extensions MUST be subservient to the main house'.

Almost that exact subservient clause was quoted in my pre-planning enquiry for a side extension on a detached bungalow. I submitted with a 200mm setback to show that I’d considered their opinion, and they’ve asked for 500mm.

I’ll probably agree - I’d like the extra space, but I think a setback will look better and if that‘s the compromise I have to make to get it through I’ll take it.

 

[thomp1983]

We went 300mm on ours as that's the thickness of a standard cavity wall and that was acceptable, half a metre seems excessive.

We also had to make sure the new roof was lower than the original too.

 

[^woody^]

We went 300mm on ours as that's the thickness of a standard cavity wall and that was acceptable, half a metre seems excessive.

We also had to make sure the new roof was lower than the original too.

It's not just about the step back dimension, as stepping back naturally lowers the ridge line and that may be more critical in meeting the subservience.