Permitted Development England
How to build a
home extension without Planning Permission using your PD rights - Oct. 1st
2008
|
|||||||||
Appeal Decision 94 - Certificate of Lawful Development.
Summary of Case (appeal dismissed):
The property is a two-storey end of terrace house, which does not front any highway (due to other intervening buildings). Its north-east elevation is a party wall with the adjoining number 44, and its north-west elevation contains an original single storey projection. The application was to erect a first floor extension on top of the latter structure, with a roof that would have joined onto the roof of the main house, with matching ridge-line.
The key issue was whether the north-west elevation constitutes “the rear wall of the dwellinghouse”, as in such a case the proposed extension 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 … (ii) be within 7 metres of any boundary of the curtilage of the dwellinghouse opposite the rear wall of the dwellinghouse”.
The Inspector noted that the north-west elevation contains the door most likely to be used by visitors (albeit in the side of the single storey projection), but stated the following:
“The CLG guidance accepts that there will be cases where the main entrance is not in the principal elevation and that is consistent with my own experience.”
The Inspector noted that the north-west elevation is blank apart from this door and a small toilet window, whilst the south-east elevation contains many more and larger openings, both windows and doors, and stated the following:
“In my judgement, when the overall design and layout of the house and the openings in it are taken into account, as well as the access arrangements and the relationship to [the road], there can be little doubt that it was intended that the southeasterly elevation, which offers panoramic sea views, would be the principal one. In the particular circumstances of this case the land on this side of the house (and its neighbours) is also the most private. It is not therefore surprising that it is used for some purposes normally carried out in rear gardens. However, that is not sufficient to alter my conclusion that the southeastern elevation is clearly the principal one.”
The Inspector then stated the following:
“In addition, having regard to its character and appearance and the fact that it is parallel to what I have concluded is the principal elevation, I consider that, as a matter of fact and degree, the northwest elevation of no. 42 is the rear one. As there is no dispute that the extension would be within 7m of the boundary opposite this elevation (and the enlarged part of the house would have more than one storey) I conclude that it does not comply with limitation A.1 (f) (ii) of the GPDO. Accordingly it would not be permitted development.”
In addition, the Inspector stated the following:
“I have also taken into account limitation A.1 (i) (iv). This was not referred to by the Council but was mentioned by neighbours. It advises that class A does not permit development that would consist of or include [my emphasis] an alteration to any part of the roof of the house. I share the neighbours’ view that the appeal proposal, which involves removing the roof of the existing single storey projection and replacing it (at a higher level) with a roof of different form, would include an alteration to the roof. Moreover, class B, which permits some roof alterations, does not repeat the phrase ‘or include’ that occurs in class A. In any event, class B does not permit alterations or additions in conservation areas and no. 42 is in such an area. I conclude that the appeal works fall foul of A.1 (i) (iv) and would not be permitted by class B. This reinforces my conclusion that they are not permitted development and means that this does not depend on correctly defining the principal elevation”.
In addition, the Inspector stated the following:
“Some neighbours have also referred to A.1 (i) (iii), which takes out of class A works that include the alteration or replacement of a flue or soil and vent pipe, as seems inevitable in this case. However, in my view this limitation need not preclude minor alterations to pipes that would not, in themselves, amount to development. This matter has not therefore contributed to my conclusions”
Main Conclusions:
·
This appeal decision provides an
example of the types of factors that should be taken into consideration when determining which
elevation is “the principal elevation”.
·
The “principal elevation” is
not necessarily the elevation that fronts a
highway.
·
The principal elevation is
not necessarily the elevation that contains the main entrance.
·
Class A does not permit
an extension that would alter the roof of an original single storey projection (in the case where the roof of
the latter is at a lower level and separate from the main roof of the house).
·
Regardless of the fact that the
installation or alteration of a soil and vent pipe might fall within the description of Class G, such works
do not necessarily constitute development, and therefore do not necessarily require planning
permission in the first place.
Links to the “Appeal Decision Notice” and other associated documents (e.g. drawings, etc):
·
Appeal Decision
Notice:
·
Existing
Drawings:
·
Proposed
Drawings:
Download documents and diagrams of useful Permitted Development information
| |||||||||
|
©2020 - Christopher Hunt :: This page
last updated: :: 