pico wrote:On exempted development under Planning & Develoment Regulations 2001, how does a Planning Authority decide the line of the rear of a house, in particular where the rear is not a straight line in plan ?
In my experience, anything which cannot be seen from the front is taken to be at the back.
What is interesting is that the rear of the house is defined in relation to the "front" of the house. Determine what the front of the house is, and you can then determine what the back is. The usual rule seems to be "wherever the main door to the property is, is the front of the house" - which can lead to unusual situations if the main/front door is to a side of the house which does not face the main entrance/road.
pico wrote:Two specific examples.
A Victorian house with a single storey rear return. Is the rear the back of the double storey part? Or is it the back of the return, therefore meaning any extension in front of this, would be defined as to the side of the house?
pico wrote:For a modern rectangular plan house, with a small additional single storey rectangular block to the side, where the block is an integral part of the house, and not an extension. Is the back of the additional block, defined as the rear or the side?