Permitted Development England
How to build a
home extension without Planning Permission using your PD rights - Oct. 1st
2008
|
|||||||||
Appeal Decision 201 - Certificate of Lawful Development.
Summary of Case (appeal dismissed):
The property is a two-storey detached house in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The property is situated to the east side of Hound House Road, and has short west and east elevations, and long north and south elevations. The application was for a very large two-storey extension (with projection 11m) on the north elevation and a single storey extension (with projection 4m) on the south elevation.
The applicant argued that the north elevation of the property, which contains the main front door, is “the principal elevation”, and as such the proposed two-storey “front” extension and single storey “rear” extension would be permitted development. The Council argued that both the north and south elevations of the property are “side” elevations, and as such the proposed two-storey “side” extension and single storey “side” extension would not be permitted development. It should be noted that the submitted drawings stated that the walls of the proposed extensions would be “rendered to match existing property”.
The first key issue was whether the proposed extensions would be contrary to Class A, part A.2(a), which states that “In the case of a dwellinghouse on article 1(5) land, development is not permitted by Class A if … it would consist of or include the cladding of any part of the exterior of the dwellinghouse with stone, artificial stone, pebble dash, render, timber, plastic or tiles”.
The Inspector stated the following:
“As the Council stated, the site is located in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and is therefore located for the purposes of the GPDO on Article 1(5) land. I acknowledge that the Council stated that it had no objection to the extension being built with a rendered finish to the walls but Class A.2 is very specific and states that ‘development is not permitted by Class A if – (a) it would consist of or include the cladding of any part of the exterior of the dwelling house with …. render,….’. The proposed development shows the outside walls of most of the development to have a rendered finish and, therefore, it is a development that requires planning permission.”
As a second key issue, the Inspector then looked at the issue of the extent of the “curtilage” of the property. The Inspector quoted various caselaw, and concluded that the extent of the curtilage of this property is less than the extent of the grounds around the property.
The Inspector then declined to comment on the issue of whether the north elevation is the principal elevation, by stating the following:
“The main difference of opinion concerned which were the principal and side elevations on this property. Even if I was to give my opinion on the matter I would not be able to grant a Certificate and, therefore, there would be no certificate establishing conclusively which elevation is the principal elevation. In those circumstances my ‘opinion’ would tie the hands of the local planning authority, the appellant and indeed, any inspector who might have to consider this question in the future and give a conclusive answer. For example a revised application could be submitted that overcame the two reasons set out earlier in this decision as to why the development is not permitted development and leave only the question of what is the principal elevation.
Neither the Council nor, if necessary, another inspector, should have my view put to them by an appellant if I supported his/her view and likewise an applicant/appellant should not have it used against him/her on a revised proposal if I supported the Council’s view. Whilst I appreciate that much of what the parties have submitted has been to try to establish the answer to this question, it would not be appropriate for me to make a formal determination on that matter when the appeal must be dismissed for the two reasons I have already set out.”
Main Conclusions:
·
In a
conservation area (or
other article 1(5) land), Class A, part A.2(a) not only prevents the cladding of
the main house, but also prevents the cladding of
any extension.
·
This appeal decision provides an
example of where it was considered that the extent of the “curtilage” of a property was less
than the extent of the grounds around the property.
Links to the “Appeal Decision Notice” and other associated documents (e.g. drawings, etc):
·
Appeal Decision
Notice:
·
Drawings:
Download documents and diagrams of useful Permitted Development information
| |||||||||
|
©2020 - Christopher Hunt :: This page
last updated: :: 