Permitted Development England
How to build a
home extension without Planning Permission using your PD rights - Oct. 1st
2008
|
|||||||||
Appeal Decision 167 - Certificate of Lawful Development.
Summary of Case (appeal dismissed):
The property is a detached chalet bungalow – i.e. a main ground floor level, with a roof containing habitable rooms (with dormers). The application was for a proposed front extension, a proposed rear extension, and a proposed side extension. All of these structures would have a main ground floor level; for each of the front and rear extensions the roof would contain habitable rooms and would join onto the roof of the main house, whilst for the side extension the roof would much lower (and would not contain habitable rooms nor join onto the roof of the main house).
The key issue was whether the proposed front and rear extension would be contrary to Class A, part A.1(i), which states that “Development is not permitted by Class A if … it would consist of or include … an alteration to any part of the roof of the dwellinghouse”.
The Inspector stated the following:
“Two classes of permitted development are of particular relevance in this appeal. Part 1, Class A deals with the enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse. Paragraph A.1 sets out categories of development which are not permitted by Class A. The proposed extensions comply with all of the requirements set out in paragraph A1, other than A1.(i)(iv). Under that sub-paragraph, development is not permitted if it would consist of or include an alteration to any part of the roof of the dwellinghouse. While the single-storey side extension would comply with this requirement, the front and rear extensions would not. They would cut into and alter the existing roof form as part of the scheme to extend the property to the front and rear.
Having regard to the above, the proposal is not permitted development under Class A only by virtue of failing the limitation in A1.(i)(iv). However, there is another class, Class B, which permits additions and alterations to the roof. I have therefore considered if the limitations in that class are met. Development is not permitted under this class if the cubic content of the resulting roofspace would exceed that of the original roofspace by more than 50 cubic metres. Although no calculations of the volumes of either original or proposed roofspace have been submitted, the appellant has not disputed the Council’s statement that the proposals would result in an increase in excess of 50 cubic metres. There is no evidence before me which leads me to a different conclusion. I am therefore unable to conclude that the extensions would amount to permitted development”.
Main Conclusions:
·
Class A does permit an extension
with a roof that would join onto the roof of the main house.
·
Where a Class A extension would
have a roof that would join onto the roof of the main house, then the extension should also be assessed
against Class B (note: in this particular case, the roof of the extension would contain dormers / rooflights
/ habitable rooms / etc).
Links to the “Appeal Decision Notice” and other associated documents (e.g. drawings, etc):
· Appeal Decision
Notice: · Existing
Drawings: · Proposed
Drawings:
Download documents and diagrams of useful Permitted Development information
| |||||||||
|
©2020 - Christopher Hunt :: This page
last updated: :: 