Permitted Development England
How to build a
home extension without Planning Permission using your PD rights - Oct. 1st
2008
|
|||||||||
Appeal Decision 231 - Certificate of Lawful Development.
Summary of Case (appeal allowed):
The property is a two-storey semi-detached house, with an original (part-width) two-storey rear projection. The application was for a proposed dormer, which would have been predominantly on the side roof of the original two-storey rear projection, as well as on a small part of the rear roof of the main part of the house.
The Council’s reason for refusal was as follows:
“The proposed development is not considered to be lawful because the proposed structure appears as a third [sic] storey extension rather than an extension of the roof. As such the proposed eaves level of the structure is at a height of greater than 3 metres within 2 metres of the boundary contrary to the requirements of section g) Class A, Part 1, of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No.2) (England) Order (October 2008)”.
The Inspector stated the following:
“The Council accepts that the appeal scheme would meet the conditions and limitations of Class B, but consider that the proposal should also meet those of Class A. This view appears to have been drawn in part from a different appeal decision at [October 2010 - Code a00143].
The ‘enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse’ under Class A is not permitted development if it would involve an ‘alteration to any part of the roof of the dwellinghouse’ by virtue of limitation A.1(i)(iv). The enlargement of a dwellinghouse consisting of an addition or alteration to its roof is covered by Class B. The other Inspector drew attention to page 7 of the Technical Guidance where it states that “when considering whether a development proposal is permitted development, all the relevant Parts of the rules and all the Classes within those Parts need to be taken into account”. He also referred to the example in the Technical Guidance whereby a proposed two storey extension at the rear of a house that includes the creation of a dormer window to enlarge the roof space, which he said was the case in the proposed development before him, would not only need to meet the requirements of Class A, but also Class B as well.
The other Inspector was entitled to reach a view about the scheme before him based on the individual circumstances of that case. In the case before me the proposed development does not involve building a two storey rear extension. The rear wing of the building is already there and the appellant has confirmed that this is an original part of the house. Although the house would be enlarged and another floor created, the development involved in doing that would only consist of a dormer addition to the roof of the house. Therefore the development falls to be considered squarely and only within Class B. There is no basis to the Council’s assertion that this particular proposed development should also meet the limitations of Class A.
Notwithstanding what the Council states about the height and projection of the addition to the roof which means that the proposal differs from “what would normally constitute a roof extension (i.e. the majority of the additional space utilising existing space within the roof)” this is not a limitation or condition of Class B. Class B clearly allows for an addition to the roof of the dwellinghouse subject to meeting certain tolerances. I agree with the parties that the proposed development would meet the limitations of Class B.
Schedule 2, Part 1 is clearly the relevant Part of the GPDO in relation to this proposal. No other Classes within this Part are relevant. The proposed scheme would be lawful by virtue of the provisions of the GPDO.”
[Note: In my opinion, the interpretation of this appeal decision is correct, whilst the interpretation of the previous appeal decision (October 2010 - Code a00143) was incorrect. However, I do sometimes wish that the Planning Inspectorate would acknowledge its previous mistakes, rather than using phrases such as “The other Inspector was entitled to reach a view about the scheme before him based on the individual circumstances of that case”.
In my opinion there was no material difference between the two schemes. Both applications related to properties with a very similar original two-storey rear projection, both applications were for a proposed dormer which would have been predominantly on the side roof of the original two-storey rear projection, both applications were refused by the London Borough of Southwark using an almost identical reason for refusal, and both appeals were assessed by an Inspector after the publication of the “DCLG - Permitted development for householders - Technical guidance” (August 2010) document. And yet in the previous appeal decision the Inspector concluded that such a dormer should be assessed against both Class A and Class B, whereas in this current appeal decision the Inspector concluded that such a dormer should be assessed against only Class B.
In my opinion, these interpretations directly contradict one-another, and therefore one of them must be incorrect. In this current appeal decision, the Inspector has stated that there was “no basis” for the Council’s conclusion. As the Council’s conclusion was based firmly on the previous Inspector’s conclusion, in my opinion it would also be appropriate to acknowledge that there was “no basis” for the previous Inspector’s conclusion, rather than stating that the latter was “entitled to reach” his view].
Main Conclusions:
·
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).
·
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.
·
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.
Links to the “Appeal Decision Notice” and other associated documents (e.g. drawings, etc):
·
Appeal Decision
Notice:
·
OS Map:
·
Drawings:
·
Council’s Decision
Notice:
Download documents and diagrams of useful Permitted Development information
| |||||||||
|
©2020 - Christopher Hunt :: This page
last updated: :: 