Permitted development 40 sq m. But what constitutes the original house?

antiskeptic

Suppose I decide to buy an old house with a view to extending & renovating. Desiring not to have anything to do with the new regs mean I would only consider an extension under Permitted Development rules. 40 sq m of an extension it is so ...

The old house itself has been extended over it's life. There's a flat roof kitchen here and a lean-to to the side there. All done many, many years ago.

What determines whether I can add an additional 40 sq m - or something less which takes into account previous additions so as to arrive at a combined 40 sq m?

Thanks..

DOCARCH

Good question!

I asked this question a number of weeks ago (not on here but elsewhere) and I am still awaiting a reply or a definitive answer.

My theory is that whatever is there on March 1st is the existing house and if you add a further 39.9 m.sq., you are exempt from the new building control regs.

You will of course need planning permission (as there is already an existing extension)...but...bear in mind that the new building control regs are nothing to do with planning (whether planning permission is required or not).

In my case, my particular question was that if have an existing house with an existing, say, 20 m.sq. extension, and you knock down the existing extension and build a 50m.sq. extension where do you stand in terms of the new building control regs? You have 50 m.sq. new build, but, you are only extending the existing house by 30 m.sq. Do new regs apply?

BryanF

IMO new 40m2 extension + new construction on the Xm2 footprint of demo area totals greater than 40m2 and therefore new regs apply

DOCARCH

BryanF wrote: »

IMO new 40m2 extension + new Xm2 of demo area totals greater than 40m2 therefore new regs apply

This is where the tricky bit comes in!

If your 50 m.sq. extension is being built in the same location as your existing 20 m.sq. extension, I assume, you could outline your 20 m.sq., as being 'retained' (even though the roof, walls and floor are being taken off/out), with your additional 30 m.sq. built around the (outline of the existing extension). in effect 'refurbishing' (fundamentally) your existing 20 m.sq. extension and then adding a 30 m.sq extension....

Voila! No new building control regulations apply...I hope (think)!

BryanF

DOCARCH wrote: »

This is where the tricky bit comes in!

If your 50 m.sq. extension is being built in the same location as your existing 20 m.sq. extension, I assume, you could outline your 20 m.sq., as being 'retained' (even though the roof, walls and floor are being taken off/out), with your additional 30 m.sq. built around the (outline of the existing extension). in effect 'refurbishing' (fundamentally) your existing 20 m.sq. extension and then adding a 30 m.sq extension....

Voila! No new building control regulations apply...I hope (think)!

Doc, we look forward to you setting the precedence with LA BC aware of course

DOCARCH

BryanF wrote: »

Doc, we look forward to you setting the precedence with LA BC aware of course

Well yes, of course, to protect my own skin, I will be sending this particular query to the relevant BCA...I don't want to be lying awake for the rest of my life! :P

BryanF

DOCARCH wrote: »

..I don't want to be lying awake for the rest of my life! :P

i though that was an occupation of all self employed?

Defor_Dog

Any part of the dwelling constructed pre 1968? Is considered to be the existing dwelling, ie pre planning permission. Anything added after this time is considered an extension to the original dwelling therefore goes toward your 40m2 "allowance"
Also I'm going on memory with the 1968 bit, could be 67, no it's 68... Right?

DOCARCH

Defor_Dog wrote: »

Any part of the dwelling constructed pre 1968? Is considered to be the existing dwelling, ie pre planning permission. Anything added after this time is considered an extension to the original dwelling therefore goes toward your 40m2 "allowance"
Also I'm going on memory with the 1968 bit, could be 67, no it's 68... Right?

1963

But what we are talking about here is building control, not planning.

From a planning point of view, yes, anything built/added to an existing house prior to 1963 is considered 'original' to that house...again, from a planning point of view.

With regard to the new building control regulations all it says that any extension to an existing dwelling, less than 40 m.sq., is exempt from the new regulations.

From a building control point of view (and the new building control regulations), in my opinion, the existing dwelling is as it is as of 28th February 2014.

sydthebeat

Defor_Dog wrote: »

Any part of the dwelling constructed pre 1968? Is considered to be the existing dwelling, ie pre planning permission. Anything added after this time is considered an extension to the original dwelling therefore goes toward your 40m2 "allowance"
Also I'm going on memory with the 1968 bit, could be 67, no it's 68... Right?

Youre thinking about 'planning regs' which was pre 63 (or actually can include everything pre oct 64).

However the SI9 regs have nothing to do with planning and are not yet clarified or tested. In theory, you could presumably add 39 sq m, then another 39, then another 39 etc etc and still be exempt. But of course the regs are written so stupidly that these things will need to be clarified, which will of course give different local authorities the power to interpret things differently. .... which they love doing.

Defor_Dog

Yes. I read it as when can old extensions to an old house
Be classified as the original house. I suppose I was answering the
Question in my head as I was reading on from the post title. Oops

Tbh I am out of the game a few yrs, so needs must I am working
A diff type job. I drop into this forum now and then to see what's new.
From what I hear/read of new regs u guys are going to have your
Work cut out.

DOCARCH

What SI 9 says:

The requirements of paragraph (1)(b) shall apply to the following
works and buildings—
(a) the design and construction of a new dwelling,
(b) an extension to a dwelling involving a total floor area greater than 40 square metres,
(c) works to which Part III applies.

In relation to section (b), there is no qualification of any sort, or definitions elsewhere, in terms of defining the 'dwelling' and/or the extension, or is there any prescription as to whether SI 9 relates to area of new build or simply just cumulative additional floor area.

Grey and open to interpretation.

4Sticks

BryanF wrote: »

IMO new 40m2 extension + new construction on the Xm2 footprint of demo area totals greater than 40m2 and therefore new regs apply

But how could, it ? Demolition and rebuilding is not extending. Only that area of new building m2 can count as extension.

Unlike the detailed scheduled expemption form planning text which opens with

Where the house has not been extended previously

adding

Where the house has been extended previously, the floor area of any such extension, taken together with the floor area of any previous extension or extensions constructed or erected after 1 October 1964, including those for which planning permission has been obtained, shall not exceed 40 square metres.

There is nothing in SI 9 2014 to stop one parceling works up into 39.9m2 segments and start-finishing each segment in turn.

So in 2014 apply for planning for 39.9m2 side extension - new building control regs don't apply

In 2015 apply for planning for other side 39.9m2 extension - still new building control regs don't apply

In 2016 - works to the rear 39.9m2 , regs still don't apply.

How can an alternative interpretation be made ?

Gumbo

DOCARCH wrote: »

In my case, my particular question was that if have an existing house with an existing, say, 20 m.sq. extension, and you knock down the existing extension and build a 50m.sq. extension where do you stand in terms of the new building control regs? You have 50 m.sq. new build, but, you are only extending the existing house by 30 m.sq. Do new regs apply?

I would consider that to be in need of a CN lodgement and therefore under the new regs.

The demolition falls under Part A of the TGD, and from there on you are building greater than 40 Sq. M.

Its just my opinion mind you, im sure some legal eagle could find a way around it?

DOCARCH

kceire wrote: »

I would consider that to be in need of a CN lodgement and therefore under the new regs.

But...if you build an extension to the side of your house, say, 20 m.sq., you need planning permission and you need to submit a commencemebt notice.

Even though you need planning permission and you need to submit a commencemebt notice, in the simple case above, the new regs (SI 9) do not apply.

So, planning permission and/or the need to submit a commencemebt notice, are not criteria determining that the new regs apply (or not).

Bear in mind we are now going to end up with in effect a 2 tier building control with 2 forms of commencement notice...where new regs (SI 9) applies and where it does not.

Must also check Part A. Who mentioned demolition? We are just taking the walls out and the roof off and replacing the roof with a new one...simple refurbishment.

DOCARCH

kceire wrote: »

The demolition falls under Part A of the TGD

If you you do any refurbishment work to your house it will normally come under some part of the B Regs, e.g., replace your windows or replace your boiler, but, new building control regs would not apply.

kceire wrote: »

From there on you are building greater than 40 Sq. M.

That may be so, but you may be only adding, say 30 m.sq., i.e. less than 40 m.sq. to the existing dwelling (as it was).

Gumbo

DOCARCH wrote: »

If you you do any refurbishment work to your house it will normally come under some part of the B Regs, e.g., replace your windows or replace your boiler, but, new building control regs would not apply.



That may be so, but you may be only adding, say 30 m.sq., i.e. less than 40 m.sq. to the existing dwelling (as it was).

All valid points DOCARCH. As i said, if somebody could argue it correctly then it may be so that it comes under the current regs, its all new to us too

bryaj

DOCARCH wrote: »

What SI 9 says:

The requirements of paragraph (1)(b) shall apply to the following
works and buildings—
(a) the design and construction of a new dwelling,
(b) an extension to a dwelling involving a total floor area greater than 40 square metres,
(c) works to which Part III applies.

In relation to section (b), there is no qualification of any sort, or definitions elsewhere, in terms of defining the 'dwelling' and/or the extension, or is there any prescription as to whether SI 9 relates to area of new build or simply just cumulative additional floor area.

Grey and open to interpretation.

What SI 9 says:

The requirements of paragraph (1)(b) shall apply to the following
works and buildings—
(a) the design and construction of a new dwelling,
(b) an extension to a dwelling involving a total floor area greater than 40 square metres,
(c) works to which Part III applies.

Can someone tell me what (c) works to which Part 111 applies - what/where is Part 111?

Gumbo

bryaj wrote: »

What SI 9 says:

The requirements of paragraph (1)(b) shall apply to the following
works and buildings—
(a) the design and construction of a new dwelling,
(b) an extension to a dwelling involving a total floor area greater than 40 square metres,
(c) works to which Part III applies.

Can someone tell me what (c) works to which Part 111 applies - what/where is Part 111?

Any works to which a Fire Safety Cert is required IIRC or somewhere along those lines....it's late.

DOCARCH

kceire wrote: »

Any works to which a Fire Safety Cert is required IIRC or somewhere along those lines....it's late.

Yes.

antiskeptic

DOCARCH wrote: »

This is where the tricky bit comes in!

If your 50 m.sq. extension is being built in the same location as your existing 20 m.sq. extension, I assume, you could outline your 20 m.sq., as being 'retained' (even though the roof, walls and floor are being taken off/out), with your additional 30 m.sq. built around the (outline of the existing extension). in effect 'refurbishing' (fundamentally) your existing 20 m.sq. extension and then adding a 30 m.sq extension....

Voila! No new building control regulations apply...I hope (think)!

Seems watertight enough to me. You would be allowed add your 30 sqm sans regs and would be allowed to refurbish your existing property. Sans regs. Surely?

antiskeptic

DOCARCH wrote: »

1963

But what we are talking about here is building control, not planning.

From a planning point of view, yes, anything built/added to an existing house prior to 1963 is considered 'original' to that house...again, from a planning point of view.

With regard to the new building control regulations all it says that any extension to an existing dwelling, less than 40 m.sq., is exempt from the new regulations.

From a building control point of view (and the new building control regulations), in my opinion, the existing dwelling is as it is as of 28th February 2014.

This is working out better than I expected. Even if there's post '63 building on site, I can apply for planning for up to 40 sqm and avoid the new regs. Subject to confirmation of your interpretation of course with the local authority/precedence established somewhere.

But how does one determine what's pre-63 or post '63 with a view to being able to get the extended, finished property certified for a sale. Now I know there are folk out there who'd certify a building nigh on sight unseen but supposing you were being reasonably legit. Is pre-63 open to wide interpretation?

antiskeptic

sydthebeat wrote: »

In theory, you could presumably add 39 sq m, then another 39, then another 39 etc etc and still be exempt.

Bloody hell. It sounds like the regs were rustled up over someone's tea break.

The same sort of thing applies to principal private residence exemption from CGT. It appears you could literally bunny hop your way from PPR to PPR, making capital gain each time - even if you only spend a day in each PPR.

This is one of the reasons I just LOVE Ireland. What a banana republic..

antiskeptic

DOCARCH wrote: »

But...if you build an extension to the side of your house, say, 20 m.sq., you need planning permission and you need to submit a commencemebt notice.

Even though you need planning permission and you need to submit a commencemebt notice, in the simple case above, the new regs (SI 9) do not apply.

So, planning permission and/or the need to submit a commencemebt notice, are not criteria determining that the new regs apply (or not).

Bear in mind we are now going to end up with in effect a 2 tier building control with 2 forms of commencement notice...where new regs (SI 9) applies and where it does not.

Must also check Part A. Who mentioned demolition? We are just taking the walls out and the roof off and replacing the roof with a new one...simple refurbishment.

Let me guess. You actively enjoy the challenge of finding ways to stretch whatever boundaries the Law tries to constrain you with.

DOCARCH

antiskeptic wrote: »

This is working out better than I expected. Even if there's post '63 building on site, I can apply for planning for up to 40 sqm and avoid the new regs.

I don't see why not? What's already built is built. You apply for a 39.9 m.sq. extension after March 1st...no new building control regulations apply.

As to the pre '63 bit, I am not sure how you prove what was pre/post '63...but that's to do with planning and the interpretaion of 'original', i.e. you could have a house built in say 1910 and an extension to that house built say in 1950...if the house was unaltered since, you could now carry out/construct a 40m.sq. exempt development extension (subject to all the relevant criterian being met, etc.), as the existing house and (pre '63) extension are considered the 'original' house in planning terms (and in relation to exempt development).

DOCARCH

antiskeptic wrote: »

Let me guess. You actively enjoy the challenge of finding ways to stretch whatever boundaries the Law tries to constrain you with.

Some of us have to make a living and advise people as to the (right) way forward! Unfortunately, in many cases, local authorities are not too helpful at answering these sort of questions...so...you have to work it out in your own head (or on Boards!).

antiskeptic

DOCARCH wrote: »

I don't see why not? What's already built is built. You apply for a 39.9 m.sq. extension after March 1st...no new building control regulations apply.

As to the pre '63 bit, I am not sure how you prove what was pre/post '63...but that's to do with planning and the interpretaion of 'original', i.e. you could have a house built in say 1910 and an extension to that house built say in 1950...if the house was unaltered since, you could now carry out/construct a 40m.sq. exempt development extension (subject to all the relevant criterian being met, etc.), as the existing house and (pre '63) extension are considered the 'original' house in planning terms (and in relation to exempt development).

It's turned out much better than expected. I don't mind applying for permission if it turns out there's post 63 stuff tacked on, it's the new regs I want to steer clear of. That said, the ambiguity of what constitutes pre and post 63 will steer me away from seeking permission at all.

I presume the line in the sand is what the person certifying the complete building makes of it planning/new regs/pre and post 63.

antiskeptic

DOCARCH wrote: »

Some of us have to make a living and advise people as to the (right) way forward! Unfortunately, in many cases, local authorities are not too helpful at answering these sort of questions...so...you have to work it out in your own head (or on Boards!).

I can imagine the subtle interpretations you're proposing landing on the mat of the local authority.

"Uh.."

I can see the correct approach right now: suggesting an interpretation of the situation and asking whether this is the correct interpretation. And if not, where is it incorrect. Back foot and all that..