Permitted Development England
How to build a
home extension without Planning Permission using your PD rights - Oct. 1st
2008
|
|||||||||
Appeal Decision 124 - Certificate of Lawful Development.
Summary of Case (appeal allowed):
The property is a two-storey semi-detached house. The application was for the retention of a hip-to-gable roof extension, rear dormer, and two front rooflights.
The first key issue was whether the use of “granulated roofing felt” on the flat roof of the dormer was contrary to Class B, part B.2(a), which requires that “the materials used in any exterior work shall be of a similar appearance to those used in the construction of the exterior of the existing dwellinghouse”.
The Inspector stated the following:
“The Council argues the materials of the flat roof of the dormer, i.e. granulated roofing felt, would not be similar to the tiles of the original roof and that accordingly the first criterion is not satisfied. However, the explanatory note issued by the Department of Communities and Local Government shortly after the introduction of the Order makes clear that in the case of flat dormer roofs the intention was that the appearance of the extension should be similar and that it is not necessary for the materials to be of the same type as those used on the main roof. Moreover, subsequent guidance on the Planning Portal takes a similar approach. It is therefore apparent that the aim of the Order is to ensure that alterations to roofs do not have a harmful visual impact. In my opinion the roof of the dormer in the present case has little, if any, visual impact since my visit to the site suggests that it is not observable from any public location in the vicinity. It would also appear that the roof is unlikely to be seen from any private location. I therefore conclude that the criterion is in fact satisfied.”
The second key issue was whether the Juliette balcony on the rear dormer was contrary to Class B, part B.1(d), which states that “Development is not permitted by Class B if … (d) it would consist of or include … (i) the construction or provision of a veranda, balcony or raised platform …”
The Inspector stated the following:
“I now turn to the second matter. The Council emphasises that the development includes a “Juliette balcony”, i.e. a French window with railings across its lower part. As is typical of such features, there is no area on which a person could stand, but the increased size of the window allows more light into the room than would be obtained from a window with a typical sill height. In my opinion, since the development does not include a balcony in the normal sense in which the term is used, i.e. a platform projecting from an outside wall, the second criterion is also satisfied. The clear intent of the Order is to prevent the additional overlooking of adjoining properties, and the resulting loss of privacy, that could arise from the provision of a platform at high level. However, as there is no such opportunity for overlooking in the present case the objective of the Order is met.”
Main Conclusions:
·
The use of felt (or similar) for
the flat roof of a dormer (assuming that the visibility of the roof would be limited) would not be
contrary to Class B, part B.2(a). The Inspector indicates (or implies) that the felt would not need to
have a similar colour to the materials on the existing house.
·
A “Juliette balcony” is
not a “balcony” for the purposes of the GPDO, and therefore is permitted
development.
Links to the “Appeal Decision Notice” and other associated documents (e.g. drawings, etc):
·
Appeal Decision
Notice:
·
Drawings:
Download documents and diagrams of useful Permitted Development information
| |||||||||
|
©2020 - Christopher Hunt :: This page
last updated: :: 