Permitted Development England
How to build a
home extension without Planning Permission using your PD rights - Oct. 1st
2008
|
|||||||||
Appeal Decision 225 - Certificate of Lawful Development.
Summary of Case (appeal allowed):
The property is a two-storey mid-terrace house with an original (part-width) two-storey rear projection. The application was for a proposed “L”-shaped dormer, which would have been across both the rear roof of the main part of the house as well as the side roof of the original two-storey rear projection.
The proposed dormer would be set back by more than 20cm from the outer edge of the section of the roof overhanging the wall of the house, but less than 20cm from the point where the vertical plane of this wall meets the slope of the roof.
The first key issue was whether the proposed dormer would be contrary to Class B, part B.2(b), which states that “Development is permitted by Class B subject to the following conditions … (b) other than in the case of a hip-to-gable enlargement, the edge of the enlargement closest to the eaves of the original roof shall, so far as practicable, be not less than 20 centimetres from the eaves of the original roof”.
The Inspector stated the following:
“The appellant’s architect indicated that he had submitted many other similar proposals which had been held to constitute permitted development. He submitted photographs and plans relating to one such development, at 5 William Street, Leyton, London, E10 6BD. The Council accepted that they had altered their interpretation of the GPDO as amended by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No 2) (England) Order 2008 as a consequence of an appeal decision which they received in February 2010 [February 2010 - Code a00092] and thus there may be what appears to be an inconsistency between some decisions which they made before and some decisions which they made after receipt of that appeal decision. However, that appeal decision was itself issued some months prior to the publication by the Department of Communities and Local Government, of Technical Guidance entitled Permitted Development for Householders (the Technical Guidance).
Looking, therefore, at the question of how the 20 cm should be measured, the Council take the view that the eaves are taken from the vertical plane of the rear wall of the house where it meets the slope of the roof. This, they consider, is consistent with the Dictionary definition of the word “Eaves”. They do not therefore accept the approach advocated by the Technical Guidance which, whilst stating that any guttering that protrudes beyond the roof slope should not be included, indicates that “the measurement of 20 cm should be made along the original roof slope from the outermost edge of the eaves (the edge of the tiles or slates) to the edge of the enlargement”.
I appreciate that, from the Explanatory Memorandum to the 2008 Order, it is clear that the 20 centimetre set back from the eaves was intended to avoid an entire rear roof being replaced and that, in certain circumstances, the Council’s interpretation of “eaves” would ensure retention of more of an existing roof than would the approach set out in the Technical Guidance. However, as the relevant Diagram within the Technical Guidance illustrates, the interpretation set out in that Guidance would still avoid the entire roof being replaced. Moreover, the Technical Guidance does not seek to define the word “eaves” but, in advising as to how this part of the GPDO should be interpreted, refers to the “outer” or “outermost” “edge of the eaves”. I am not therefore convinced that there is necessarily a conflict between the Council’s interpretation of “eaves” and that of the Technical Guidance and, as already mentioned, the appeal decision on which the Council rely was reached without the benefit of that Technical Guidance.
Whilst I can understand that the Council would prefer a different interpretation to be applied, the Technical Guidance has been issued in order to provide advice and certainty not only to professionals but also to householders and, on the evidence available, I am not convinced that I should depart from that Guidance.”
As the eaves of the original two-storey rear projection are at a lower level than the eaves of the main rear roof, the part where the dormer extends from the former roof to the latter roof would involve removing a section of the original eaves of the main rear roof.
The second key issue was whether this would be contrary to Class B, part B.2(b), which states that “other than in the case of a hip-to-gable enlargement, the edge of the enlargement closest to the eaves of the original roof shall, so far as practicable, be not less than 20 centimetres from the eaves of the original roof”.
“Moving on, therefore, to consider the question of “so far as practicable”, the appellant has two main arguments. The appeal property is of typical design for a two-storey Victorian terrace, being broadly L-shaped, with the leg of the L adjoining the leg of the L to the neighbouring property, No. 65. The development is that of one roof extension to the rear of the property and affecting both the main roof and the leg of the L and thus itself being L-shaped.
Bearing this in mind the appellant’s first argument is that he has maintained the 20 centimetre set back so far as practicable but that, because of the design of the original roof, there is a part of the main roof where there are no eaves and where the 20 centimetre setback would not therefore apply. In any event, he further argues, if one sought to continue a 20 centimetre set back along the main roof, it would then leave a narrow gap between that part of the extension on the main roof and that on the leg of the L, which would be extremely difficult to maintain. Thus, for this reason also it would not be practicable to set this element of the development back by the 20 centimetres referred to in the Guidance.
I concur with this view because again it seems to me to be in line with the Technical Guidance. At page 35 of that Guidance it is explained that “this 20cm set back will be required unless it can be demonstrated that this is not possible due to practical or structural considerations”. It goes on to say that “one circumstance where it will not prove practical to maintain this 20 cm distance will be where a dormer on a side extension of a house joins an existing, or proposed, dormer on the main roof of the house”. Bearing in mind how the Technical Guidance interprets the term “side elevation”, (see page 22 of the Guidance) it seems to me that the appellant is correct in his interpretation of the GPDO and that it would not be practicable to retain the 20 centimetre setback other than where it has already been achieved. Condition B.2(b) is therefore complied with.”
Main Conclusions:
·
For the purposes of the 20cm set
back, the term “eaves” applies just to the outer edge of the section of the roof overhanging the wall.
As such, the 20cm set back should be measured from the outer edge of the sloping
roof.
·
Where a property has an original
rear projection (with a roof at a similar level to the main roof) then an extension (e.g. a dormer) on the
roof of the original rear projection would fall within the scope of Class B (i.e. rather than
Class A).
·
The phrase “the highest part of
the existing roof” refers to the house as a whole (i.e. the main ridge-line), and not just the
part of the house where the works would be carried out.
·
For example, where a property
has an original rear projection, a dormer on the roof of the latter structure is limited by the height of the
main ridge-line of the house, and not by the height of the ridge-line of the original rear
projection.
·
Where the eaves of an original
two-storey rear projection are at a lower level than the eaves of the main rear roof, the requirement to be
not less than 20cm from the eaves of the original roof would not prevent an “L”-shaped dormer that
extends from the former roof to the latter roof.
Links to the “Appeal Decision Notice” and other associated documents (e.g. drawings, etc):
·
Appeal Decision
Notice:
·
OS Map:
·
Drawings:
·
Section:
Download documents and diagrams of useful Permitted Development information
| |||||||||
|
©2020 - Christopher Hunt :: This page
last updated: :: 