Permitted Development England
How to build a
home extension without Planning Permission using your PD rights - Oct. 1st
2008
|
|||||||||
Appeal Decision 210 - Certificate of Lawful Development.
Summary of Case (appeals dismissed):
The property is a two-storey (including roof level) detached house with a “chalet” type design. The main roof is dual-pitched (front and rear pitches) with very low eaves (at height 2.5m), and with the first floor level situated within the roof space (with projecting dormers). Both applications were for a proposed two-storey rear extension, with a flat roof that would join onto the main rear roof at a line just above half way up the latter. In appeal A, the ground floor of the proposed rear extension would have depth 4m and the first floor would have depth 3m. In appeal B, both storeys of the proposed rear extension would have depth 3m.
The first key issue was whether the proposed rear extension in appeal A 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:
“The Appellant effectively argues that the proposed extension should be subdivided into two component parts for the purposes of applying the GPDO. He contends that the two storey element of the scheme would not be caught by the exception detailed at paragraph A.1(f) of Class A as it would not extend beyond the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse by more than 3 metres or be within 7 metres of any curtilage boundary opposite the rear wall. He further suggests that the single storey element of the extension would not conflict with paragraph A.1(e), as it would not project beyond the original rear wall by more than 4 metres and would be less than 4 metres high.
However, this approach is incorrect. A single development scheme cannot be sliced into component parts in this way for the purposes of applying permitted development legislation but, instead, must be considered as a whole. This principle is long established in case law (Garland v MHLG [1968] 20 P&CR 93) and is reflected in current advice on page 19 of the government publication Permitted development for householders: Technical guidance (August 2010) (the PDTG). The latter specifically states: ‘The limits applying to an enlargement of a house by more than one storey will apply in all cases where the enlarged part of the dwelling house includes any part that is of more than one storey’. The accompanying diagram depicts a development of the same form as the Appeal A scheme as one which would not constitute permitted development. The projection of the single storey element of the proposal by more than 3 metres beyond the original rear wall therefore breaches permitted development tolerances.”
The second key issue was whether the proposed extension would be contrary to Class A, part A.1(c), which states that “Development is not permitted by Class A if … the height of the eaves of the part of the dwellinghouse enlarged, improved or altered would exceed the height of the eaves of the existing dwellinghouse”
The Inspector stated the following:
“In any event, the Appeal A proposal also fails to comply with the limits set by paragraph A.1(c) of Class A, in that the height of the eaves of the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would exceed the height of the existing eaves. The Appellant asserts to the contrary. However, by reason of the property’s chalet form, the existing eaves are low, at a height of no more than about 2.5 metres above ground level. Conventionally, the eaves of a flat roofed building or addition are taken to be the point at which the roof meets the vertical outside wall which, in this case, would be some 6 metres above ground level. This interpretation of eaves level is endorsed on pages 10 and 11 of the PDTG.
Turning to Appeal B, the omission of the single storey element of the proposal removes conflict with paragraph A.1(f) of Class A. However, limitations on eaves height are still not complied with and, therefore, this proposal also requires express planning permission. Although the Appellant comments that the question of eaves was not identified in the Council’s first refusal to grant a LDC or in officer advice prior to the second, it is nonetheless relevant and must be taken into account. The Appellant refers to another appeal decision, ref no [November 2009 - Code a00047], which granted a LDC for works elsewhere including, amongst other things, a two storey rear extension. However, although I do not know the full circumstances, it is not apparent that the eaves of the extension in that other case would have been any higher than those of the original dwellinghouse.”
Main Conclusions:
·
Where it is proposed to erect a
two-storey rear extension, Class A, part A.1(f) would restrict both storeys to a depth of 3m. It
therefore is not possible on a detached property to erect (as a single operation) a two-storey rear
extension that has a ground floor with depth 4m and a first floor with depth 3m.
·
The term “eaves” does
apply to the edge of a flat roof (note: in this particular case, the flat roof would not have an overhang
that would project beyond the line of the walls).
·
The height of the eaves should
be measured from the ground level at the base of the outside wall to the point where this wall would meet (if
projected upwards) the upper surface of the roof.
Links to the “Appeal Decision Notice” and other associated documents (e.g. drawings, etc):
·
Appeal Decision
Notice:
·
OS Map:
·
Existing
Drawings:
·
Proposed Drawings for Appeal
A:
·
Proposed Drawings for Appeal
B:
Download documents and diagrams of useful Permitted Development information
| |||||||||
|
©2020 - Christopher Hunt :: This page
last updated: :: 