Permitted Development England
How to build a
home extension without Planning Permission using your PD rights - Oct. 1st
2008
|
|||||||||
Appeal Decision 143 - Certificate of Lawful Development.
Summary of Case (appeal dismissed):
The property is a two-storey mid-terrace house, with an original two-storey rear projection. The application was for a proposed dormer, which would have been predominantly on the side roof of the original two-storey rear projection, as well as on part of the rear roof of the main part of the house.
The Council’s reason for refusal was as follows:
“The proposed development is not considered to be lawful because the proposed structure appears as a second storey extension rather than an extension of the roof. As such the proposed eaves level of the structure is at a height of greater than 3 metres within 2 metres of the boundary contrary to the requirements of section g) Class A, Part 1, Class A, of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No.2) (England) Order (October 2008)”.
The Inspector stated the following:
“Guidance on the need for planning permission for extensions to dwellings is given in the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No.2) ( England) Order 2008. Class A of Part 1 of the Order deals with enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse, while Part B concerns the enlargement of a dwellinghouse consisting of an addition or alteration to its roof. In each case a proposal has to satisfy a number of requirements to be regarded as permitted development. The Council accepts that the present scheme satisfies the requirements of Class B but considers however that it falls within Class A, whose requirements it cannot satisfy. In the appellant’s view the proposal falls within Class B.
Helpful advice on the interpretation of the Order has recently been given in a document published by the Department of Communities and Local Government in August 2010 entitled “Permitted development for householders – Technical guidance”. Page 7 of the document makes clear that when determining whether a development proposal is permitted development, all of the relevant Parts of the rules and all the Classes within those Parts need to be taken into account. It further states that where a proposed two-storey extension at the rear of a house has a roof that joins onto the main roof of the original house, as in the present case, the works will need to meet the requirements of both Class A and (my emphasis) Class B to be permitted development.
In my opinion this advice is clearly relevant to the matter before me in the appeal. It is common ground that the scheme satisfies Class B. However, criterion (g) of Class A cannot be satisfied since the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse is within two metres of the boundary and is greater than three metres in height. Page 21 of the document states that “where any part of an extension to a house is within two metres of the boundary of the land surrounding the property, then the maximum height of the eaves that is allowed for all parts of the proposal is three metres”. I therefore conclude that the proposed development is not permitted by the Order and requires planning permission. The appeal must accordingly fail”.
Main Conclusions:
·
Where a property has an original
rear projection (with a roof at a similar level to the main roof) then an extension (e.g. a dormer) on the
roof of the original rear projection would need to be assessed against Class A and Class
B.
Links to the “Appeal Decision Notice” and other associated documents (e.g. drawings, etc):
· Appeal Decision
Notice: ·
Drawings: · Council’s Delegated
Report: · Council’s Decision
Notice:
Download documents and diagrams of useful Permitted Development information
| |||||||||
|
©2020 - Christopher Hunt :: This page
last updated: :: 