Permitted Development England
How to build a
home extension without Planning Permission using your PD rights - Oct. 1st
2008
|
|||||||||
Appeal Decision 196 - Certificate of Lawful Development.
Summary of Case (appeal dismissed):
The property is a two-storey semi-detached house. The application included a proposed side and rear extension, the footprint of which would have covered the full length of the main side elevation (with width 2.0m) and then wrapped around the corner to cover the full width of the main rear elevation (with depth 3.0m). The part of the extension directly to the rear of the main rear elevation would have consisted of a single storey part, within 2m of the boundary, and a two-storey part, more than 2m from the boundary.
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:
“Thus, to qualify as permitted development the extension must therefore: (i) extend no more than 3m beyond the rear wall of this semi-detached house; (ii) be single storey and not exceed 4m in height; and (iii) have a total width that does not exceed more than half the width of the original dwelling house.
Applying this approach to the circumstances of this case, the first criterion set out in the preceding paragraph would be clearly met. However, the extension as a whole would have a width greater than half the width of the original house and include elements that are not single storey and not under 4m in height. I therefore consider that erecting the extension as a single building operation in the form depicted on plan ref. BUTT-5 would not be permitted development under the 2008 Order and would require planning permission. Thus, I find that the Council’s refusal to issue a lawful development certificate was well founded.
I am aware that my reasoning for determining that a lawful development certificate cannot be issued in this case differs somewhat from the Council’s reasoning. I have studied the decision made by one of my colleagues with regard to a single storey side and rear extension with a ridge height of no more than 4m at [October 2009 - Code a00035], Banstead where the appeal was successful and a lawful development certificate was issued. However, that appeal decision was issued in October 2009 so the Inspector did not have the benefit of the technical guidance on householder permitted developments published in August 2010. He may not have reached the same decision if the technical guidance had been available to him. Moreover, that appeal decision is not binding and I am satisfied that my approach reflects the wording of the 2008 Order as amplified by the technical guidance.”
[Note: In my opinion, the proposed extension would also be contrary to Class A, part A.1(g), because part of the extension would be within 2m of a boundary and part of the eaves of the extension would exceed 3m in height].
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.
·
Under Class A, part A.1(h),
where part of a proposed extension would extend beyond an original side wall, the restriction against having
“more than one storey” 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, no part of proposed extension
can have more than one storey, even if the part of the extension that extends beyond the original side
wall does not itself have more than one storey.
·
Under Class A, part A.1(h),
where part of a proposed extension would extend beyond an original side wall, the restriction against
exceeding “4m in height” 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, no part of proposed extension
can exceed 4m in height, even if the part of the extension that extends beyond the original side wall
does not itself exceed 4m in height.
·
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: :: 