Permitted Development England
How to build a
home extension without Planning Permission using your PD rights - Oct. 1st
2008
|
|||||||||
Appeal Decision 186 - Certificate of Lawful Development.
Summary of Case (appeal dismissed):
The property is a two-storey semi-detached house. The application was for a proposed single storey side and rear extension, which would have projected from the side elevation (by less than half the width of the house) and then wrapped around the rear/side corner to project from the full-width of the rear elevation (by 3m).
The key issue was whether the proposed side and rear extension would be contrary to Class A, part A.1(h), which states that “Development is not permitted by Class A if … the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse, and would— (i) exceed 4 metres in height, (ii) have more than one storey, or (iii) have a width greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse”.
The Inspector stated the following:
“Referring to the application plan the proposed extension includes, amongst other things, a “kitchen/diner”. I will refer to this part of the extension as the kitchen/diner. The kitchen/diner extends from a line 40mm from the common boundary with the adjoining house across the full width of the original dwellinghouse and beyond the wall forming the side elevation of the original dwellinghouse. The width of the kitchen/diner has a width greater than half the width of the original dwelling-house. Therefore I am of the view that the extension as a whole would not be permitted development under the GPDO and if it were built enforcement action could be taken against it.
I am aware that my reasoning for determining that the CLUOD cannot be issued in this case differs from the Council’s reasoning. It also differs from Inspector Drew’s passing comments in the appeal relating to [December 2009 - Code a00062]. However, Mr Drew’s decision is not binding and my approach reflects the wording of the GPDO”.
Main Conclusions:
·
Under Class A, part A.1(h),
where part of a proposed extension would extend beyond an original side wall, the restriction against having
“a width greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse” applies to the entire extension
(i.e. not just to that part of the extension that extends beyond the original side wall). In other
words, the overall width of the proposed extension can not be greater than then half the width
of the main house, even if the part of the extension that extends beyond the original side wall does
not do so by more than half the width of the house.
·
Where the rear and side
elevations of a property are flat (i.e. not stepped), Class A, part A.1(e), and Class A, part A.1(h) would
not allow an extension to project 3m/4m from the rear elevation and then wrap-around the
corner to project half the width of the house from the side elevation. This is on the basis that the
restriction against having “a width greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse” applies to the
entire extension (i.e. not just to that part of the extension that extends beyond the original
side wall).
Links to the “Appeal Decision Notice” and other associated documents (e.g. drawings, etc):
·
Appeal Decision
Notice:
·
OS Map:
·
Drawings:
Download documents and diagrams of useful Permitted Development information
| |||||||||
|
©2020 - Christopher Hunt :: This page
last updated: :: 