Permitted Development England
How to build a
home extension without Planning Permission using your PD rights - Oct. 1st
2008
|
|||||||||
Appeal Decision 179 - Certificate of Lawful Development.
Summary of Case (appeal allowed):
The property is a two-storey mid-terrace house with an original two-storey rear projection. The application was for a proposed “L”-shaped dormer, which would have been across both the rear roof of the main part of the house as well as the side roof of the original two-storey rear projection.
The Council’s reason for refusal was as follows:
“The proposed development involving a loft conversion with a dormer window to the rear and back addition is not lawful by virtue of Class B and C of Schedule 2 Part 1 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended). It would not fall within Permitted Development as set out by the above-mentioned Class, as the rear dormer would not be set back 20cm from the eaves of the original house”.
The submitted drawings indicate that the part of the proposed dormer on the rear roof would be set-back from the original rear eaves by at least 20cm, and that the part of the proposed dormer on the side roof would be set-back from the original side eaves by at least 20cm. As such, it appears that the Council’s reason for refusal is a reference to the fact that as the eaves of the original two-storey rear projection are at a lower level than the eaves of the main rear roof, the part where the dormer extends from the former roof to the latter roof would involve removing a section of the original eaves of the main rear roof.
The key issue was whether the proposals would be contrary to Class B, part B.2(b), which states that “other than in the case of a hip-to-gable enlargement, the edge of the enlargement closest to the eaves of the original roof shall, so far as practicable, be not less than 20 centimetres from the eaves of the original roof”.
The Inspector stated the following:
“The Council’s reason for refusing the application was that the proposed development would not fall within permitted development as the rear dormer would not be set back 20cm from the eaves of the original house. Therefore the only issue to be determined in this appeal is whether the proposal would comply with condition B.2(b).
Condition B.2(b) states that the edge of the enlargement closest to the eaves of the original roof shall, so far as practicable, be not less than 20 centimetres from the eaves of the original roof. Guidance issued by the Department for Communities and Local Government states that ‘the measurement of 20cm should be made along the original roof slope from the outermost edge of the eaves (the edge of the tiles or slates) to the edge of the enlargement. Any guttering that protrudes beyond the roof slope should not be included in this measurement. This 20cm set back will be required unless it can be demonstrated that this is not possible due to practical or structural considerations. One circumstance where it will not prove practical to maintain this 20cm distance will be where a dormer on a side extension of a house joins an existing, or proposed, dormer on the main roof of the house’.
The drawing indicates that the dormers in the main roof and the roof of the rear projection would be set back 20cm from the eaves. It may be that this set-back may not be possible where the dormers meet, and it is not possible to deduce this from the drawing, but this eventuality is considered to be acceptable by the Guidance as set out above.
The Appellant refers to an appeal decision [December 2009 - Code a00068] which he maintains establishes a precedent for the proposal that is the subject of this appeal. From the description of the proposed development in that decision and not having seen the plans it may well be that the proposal in that appeal was different from the one I am considering in this appeal. But taking into account drawing number HR 01a and the advice in the Guidance I have no reason to reach a different conclusion from the Inspector in that case.
I have also taken into account an appeal decision [February 2010 - Code a00092] referred to me by the Council where the proposal was for ‘Amendment to the roof of the existing dormer window and the re-introduction of the hip to the main roof’. Although the Inspector considered the question of the 20cm set back the circumstances are very different from those in this case and I give that decision little weight”.
The Inspector then allowed the appeal.
[Note: By being allowed, this appeal decision implies several other conclusions, as set out below].
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 fall within the scope of Class B (i.e. rather than Class
A).
·
The phrase “the highest part of
the existing roof” refers to the house as a whole (i.e. the main ridge-line), and not just the part of the
house where the works would be carried out.
·
For example, where a property
has an original rear projection, a dormer on the roof of the latter structure is limited by the height of the
main ridge-line of the house, and not by the height of the ridge-line of the original rear
projection.
·
Where the eaves of an original
two-storey rear projection are at a lower level than the eaves of the main rear roof, the requirement to be
not less than 20cm from the eaves of the original roof would not prevent an “L”-shaped dormer that extends
from the former roof to the latter roof.
Links to the “Appeal Decision Notice” and other associated documents (e.g. drawings, etc):
· Appeal Decision
Notice: · OS
Map: ·
Drawings: · Proposed Roof
Plan:
Download documents and diagrams of useful Permitted Development information
| |||||||||
|
©2020 - Christopher Hunt :: This page
last updated: :: 