Appeal Decision 165 - Certificate of Lawful Development.

November 2010 - Code a00165

Summary of Case (appeal dismissed): 

The property is a two-storey mid-terrace house, and the application was for a proposed single storey rear extension. The submitted drawing 6393ELS-02 shows that the proposed extension would have a flat roof, with side parapet walls. 

The main issue was whether permitted development rights had been removed by a condition on a previous planning permission, and the Inspector concluded that they had been removed. However, the Inspector also considered (from a hypothetical point of view) whether the proposed extension would have been permitted development anyway (i.e. if permitted development rights hadn’t been removed). 

For this assessment, the key issue was whether the proposals would be contrary to 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: 

“First of all I will consider whether the extension would be permitted development under the Order irrespective of the other matters referred to below. Part 1 Class A of the GPDO explains that it is permitted development to enlarge a dwelling-house. However, that development is not permitted it “the enlarged part of the dwelling-house would be within 2 metres of the boundary of the dwelling-house, and the height of the eaves of the enlarged part would exceed 3 metres”. The side walls of the extension would be within two metres of the No. 37’s common boundaries with both Nos. 36 and 38 and, on the basis of the submitted Drawing (No. 6393ELS-02) the height of the eaves of the extension exceed 3m in height. Therefore I am of the view that the extension would not be permitted development under the GPDO and enforcement action could be taken against it”. 

Because the submitted drawing 6393ELS-02 shows that the proposed extension would have a flat roof, with side parapet walls, the above conclusion indicates that the term “eaves” does apply to the edge of a flat roof. 

Main Conclusions: 

·       The term “eaves” does apply to the edge of a flat roof (note: in this particular case, the flat roof would not have an overhang that would project beyond the line of the walls).
[Note: This would appear to contradict at least one other appeal decision – for further information see the entry in the “Reference Section” on “Eaves”].
[Relevant to: “Eaves”, A.1(c), 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=a00165-Appeal-Decision-Notice.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

·       OS Map:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00165-OS-Map.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

·       Existing Ground Floor:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00165-Existing-Ground-Floor.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

·       Proposed Ground Floor:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00165-Proposed-Ground-Floor.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

·       Rear and Side Elevations:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00165-Rear-and-Side-Elevations.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

·       Rear Elevations and Sections:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00165-Rear-Elevations-and-Sections.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

Download documents and diagrams of useful

Permitted Development information