Appeal Decision 189 - Certificate of Lawful Development.

January 2011 - Code a00189

Summary of Case (appeal dismissed): 

The property is a two-storey end-of-terrace house with a pitched roof. Part of the main front elevation is set-back resulting in a second ridge-line at a lower level than the main ridge-line. The application included a proposed part single-storey / part two-storey rear extension with depth 3m (and eaves projecting to depth 3.32m). The single storey part of this rear extension would have been within 2m of the boundary and would have eaves at height no greater than 3m. The two-storey part of this rear extension would have been more than 2m from the boundary, and its roof would have involved joining onto the second (lower) ridge-line and raising the latter to the same level as the main (higher) ridge-line. As the proposals are relatively difficult to describe, please see the submitted drawings. 

The application also included a proposed porch. The porch would be located outside part of the front elevation that currently doesn’t contain an external door (just windows). 

The first key issue was whether the proposed extension would be contrary to Class A, part A.1(f), which states that “Development is not permitted by Class A if … the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would have more than one storey and … (i) extend beyond the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse by more than 3 metres”. 

The Inspector stated the following: 

“Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A.1 (f) (i) of the GPDO limits development to the extent that when the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would have more than one storey it cannot extend beyond the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse by more than 3m. The Council points out that, including the eaves overhang, the rear extension would have a maximum projection of 3.32m. This is despite the footprint of the extension having a depth of 3m. In my view it is normal practice for sizes of buildings to be assessed on the basis of their ground coverage. This is a precise measurement. Measurements of eaves overhangs and gutters can be influenced by, for example, the size of gutters used. Therefore including such features can be imprecise. Furthermore, as a matter of fact and degree, the eaves and gutters proposed do not add significantly to the size of the extension. In this context, I consider that the projecting eaves and gutters of the extension should be set aside when considering its extent. 

Such an assessment would also be in line with the CLG Technical Guidance which advises that measurement of the extension beyond the rear wall should be made from the base of the rear wall of the original house to the outer edge of the wall of the extension (not including any guttering or barge boards). Diagrams in the technical guidance show this approach.  

On the basis of the above, the proposed rear extension would meet Class A.1 (f) (i).” 

The second 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: 

“Development is not permitted by Class A.1 (g) if “the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would be within two metres of the boundary of the curtilage of the dwellinghouse, and the height of the eaves of the enlarged part would exceed three metres”. In this case the rear extension would come within 2m of the boundary of the curtilage and the eaves height of the two storey section would be above 3m. The appellant asserts that because the two storey element would be inset from the curtilage boundaries and it is only the single storey parts that would come within 2m, which would have eaves heights of 3m, then the scheme would comply with this limitation. It has further been suggested that the proposal could be considered as two separate applications. The first would comprise the two storey element. The second would be for the single storey parts. 

However, what is before me is one application. Therefore the scheme should be considered as a whole. Also, based on the plans before me I have no doubt that the extension would be undertaken as one building operation. On this basis A.1 (g) would be breached because the height of the eaves of the two storey element would exceed 3m and this is an integral part of enlarging the dwellinghouse in a single operation. As one enlarged part, as I read A.1 (g), no part can have an eaves height that exceeds 3m. 

This view is backed up by the CLG Technical Guidance. It advises that “Where any part of the proposed extension to a house is within two metres of the boundary of the land surrounding the property, then the maximum height of the eaves that is allowed for all parts of the proposal is three metres”. In this context it is clear that, even though the roof pitch of the extension would match the roof pitch of the original dwellinghouse, the rear extension would breach Class A.1 (g)”. 

The third key issue was whether the proposed “porch” would fall within the scope of Class D, which relates to “The erection or construction of a porch outside any external door of a dwellinghouse”. 

The Inspector stated the following: 

“As far as the front porch is concerned, it would not be located outside any external door of the dwellinghouse. There may be an intention to move the front door to where the porch is shown to go. However, the fact is that in the absence of an external door at the moment, the porch would not be permitted development. The porch would not therefore comply with Class D of the GPDO.” 

Main Conclusions: 

·       Where the rear wall of an extension would comply with the 3m rear projection limit of Class A, part A.1(f), but the eaves / guttering / soffit / fascia of the extension would project slightly past this line, then this would still be permitted development.
[Relevant to: A.1(f)].

·       Where parts of a proposed extension are within 2m of a boundary, the 3m eaves height limit applies not just to those parts within 2m of the boundary, but to all parts of the proposed extension.
[Note: This would appear to contradict at least one other appeal decision – for further information see the entry in the “Reference Section” on “A.1(g)”]
[Relevant to: A.1(g), E.1(d)].

·       For a proposed “porch” to be permitted development, it must be outside an existing external door.
[Relevant to: “Interaction between Class A and Class D”, Class A, Class D].

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

·       Appeal Decision Notice:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00189-Appeal-Decision-Notice.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

·       OS Map:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00189-OS-Map.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

·       Existing Floor Plans:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00189-Existing-Floor-Plans.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

·       Existing Elevations:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00189-Existing-Elevations.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

·       Existing Roof Plan:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00189-Existing-Roof-Plan.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

·       Proposed Floor Plans:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00189-Proposed-Floor-Plans.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

·       Proposed Elevations:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00189-Proposed-Elevations.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

Download documents and diagrams of useful

Permitted Development information