Appeal Decision 152 - Certificate of Lawful Development.

November 2010 - Code a00152

Summary of Case (appeal allowed): 

The property is a two-storey semi-detached house, with an existing extension across part of the width of its rear elevation. The application was for a proposed single storey rear extension (conservatory) across the remaining width of the rear elevation. The proposed extension would have had a pitched roof, with the lower end at height less than 3m and the higher end at height more than 3m (but less than 4m). 

The key issue was whether the sloping side edges of the pitched roof (i.e. verge) and the sloping side parapet walls are “eaves” for the purposes of Class A, part A.1(g), which states that “Development is not permitted by Class A if … the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would be within 2 metres of the boundary of the curtilage of the dwellinghouse, and the height of the eaves of the enlarged part would exceed 3 metres”. 

The Inspector stated the following: 

“The meaning of “eaves” is not defined in the GPDO and different interpretations have emerged since the 2008 amendment was issued. The Council’s interpretation is that the term is applicable to the outer edge of a parapet wall and to the verge of both sloping and flat roofs. On this basis the Council considers that the brick gable wall on the party boundary, part of which would exceed 3m in height, would exceed the 2008 GPDO provisions. 

In August 2010 (after the appeal was submitted) the Department for Communities and Local Government issued technical guidance entitled “Permitted Development for Householders”, in order to clarify and to provide greater consistency in interpreting the 2008 GPDO amendments. Page 11 of that document gives illustrations and an explanation of how eaves height should be measured for GPDO purposes. The height is to be measured from ground level at the base of the outside wall to the point where that wall would meet the upper surface of the roof slope. On that basis the eaves of the proposed conservatory would not exceed 3m. That accords with the appellants’ understanding. In all other respects the proposal falls within the permitted development provisions of the GPDO.” 

Main Conclusions: 

·       For an extension with a pitched roof, the “eaves” of the extension are the lower end of the slope, and can not be taken to be the side edges (i.e. verge) of the slope.
[Relevant to: “Eaves”, A.1(g), E.1(e)].

·       The height of the eaves should be measured from the ground level at the base of the outside wall to the point where this wall would meet (if projected upwards) the upper surface of the roof.
[Relevant to: “Eaves”, A.1(g), E.1(e)].

Links to the “Appeal Decision Notice” and other associated documents (e.g. drawings, etc): 

·       Appeal Decision Notice:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00152-Appeal-Decision-Notice.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

·       OS Map:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00152-OS-Map.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

·       Existing Drawings:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00152-Existing-Drawings.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

·       Proposed Drawings:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00152-Proposed-Drawings.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

·       Proposed Site Plan:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00152-Proposed-Site-Plan.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

Download documents and diagrams of useful

Permitted Development information