Permitted Development England
How to build a
home extension without Planning Permission using your PD rights - Oct. 1st
2008
|
|||||||||
Appeal Decision 110 - Certificate of Lawful Development.
Summary of Case (appeal dismissed):
The property is a detached house with an original single storey side projection. The application was for a proposed first floor extension on top of the latter structure.
The Council refused the applicant on the basis that the proposed extension would be contrary to Class A, part A.1(d) and Class A, part A.1(h).
The Inspector stated the following:
“Examination of the plans submitted reveals that the existing kitchen has a wall that fronts the highway and that wall is shown to extend beyond the immediately adjoining front wall of the rest of the house by 900mm or thereabouts. In comparison the front wall of the new extension at first floor level is shown as projecting beyond the same adjoining wall by 1000mm or thereabouts. Although there are no figured dimensions on the plans there is a difference that scales 100mm. It seems likely that the difference identified is a slip in drafting the drawing because the proposed side elevation shows the relevant wall at first floor level contiguous with the ground floor beneath.
Whether there is an unintended error or not, the plans as drawn demonstrate a projection that is shown by paragraph A1 (d) as development that is not permitted. The onus of proof lies with the appellant. In all the circumstances of this case a Certificate cannot be issued and the appeal must fail.”
As stated above, from the submitted floor plans it appeared that the proposed first floor extension on top of the original single storey side projection would have projected 100mm further forward (i.e. nearer the highway) than the latter structure. Even though the Inspector acknowledged that this 100mm projection appeared to be a drafting error (as it was not shown on the submitted side elevations) he concluded that the applicant had thereby failed to demonstrate that the proposals would accord with Class A, part A.1(d).
[Note: In my opinion, the following question, which was almost addressed by this appeal decision, is particularly interesting:
Question: Where a property has an original single storey side projection, would a first floor extension directly on top of the latter structure be contrary to Class A, part A.1(h) … ? For reference, this limitation states that “Development is not permitted by Class A if … the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse, and would— … (ii) have more than one storey …”
Answer 1: Suppose the “side elevation of the original dwellinghouse” is taken to be the (straight) vertical plane level with the outer wall of the original single storey side projection. If this is the case, then the first floor side extension would not extend beyond this plane, therefore would not be contrary to the above limitation, and therefore would be permitted development.
Answer 2: Suppose the “side elevation of the original dwellinghouse” is taken to be stepped vertically, so that at ground floor level it is the outer wall of the original single storey side projection, whilst at first floor level it is the main flank wall of the house. If this is the case, then the first floor side extension would extend beyond the latter, therefore would be contrary to the above limitation, and therefore would not be permitted development
Although the above question is relevant to the above appeal, it was not answered by the Inspector as he had already concluded that the extension would be contrary to another limitation].
Main Conclusions:
·
In an application for a
certificate of lawfulness, the burden of proof is firmly on the
applicant.
Links to the “Appeal Decision Notice” and other associated documents (e.g. drawings, etc):
·
Appeal Decision
Notice:
·
OS Map:
·
Drawings:
Download documents and diagrams of useful Permitted Development information
| |||||||||
|
©2020 - Christopher Hunt :: This page
last updated: :: 