Permitted Development England
How to build a
home extension without Planning Permission using your PD rights - Oct. 1st
2008
|
|||||||||
Appeal Decision 98 - Certificate of Lawful Development.
Summary of Case (appeal dismissed):
The property is a two-storey semi-detached house, with an original single storey rear projection. The application was for a proposed first floor rear extension on top of the latter structure.
The first key issue was whether the proposed extension would fall within the scope of Class B (“The enlargement of a dwellinghouse consisting of an addition or alteration to its roof”).
The Inspector stated the following:
“I share the view of the parties that the proposed development must be considered in relation to the provisions of Class B of Part 1 of the schedule attached to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No. 2) (England) Order 2008. This provides guidance on what additions or alterations to the roof of a dwellinghouse may be made without the need to obtain planning permission. Such a view is endorsed by the explanatory document produced by the Department of Communities and Local Government after the introduction of the Order.”
[Note: In my
opinion, the above conclusion is questionable. The
“
Question: “Clarification sought on the enlargement of dwellinghouse - where the enlargement takes the form of an addition or alteration to the roof over the outrigger/back addition.”
Answer:
In my opinion the above guidance is applicable to the general situation in which the roof of an “outrigger” (which is typically two or more storeys) is at a similar height (or only slightly lower) to the main roof. In such a situation, an extension to the roof of this outrigger would be at a similar height to the main roof, and above the general level of windows (of both the application site and neighbouring properties). In my opinion, it therefore makes sense to consider such an extension under Class B, which is designed to deal with structures at roof level and therefore does not contain limitations to protect the sunlight and daylight of neighbouring properties.
However, in my opinion, the situation where the original rear projection is only single storey is significantly different. In such a situation, an extension to the roof of this single storey rear projection would be much lower than the main roof, and would be at a similar height to the general level of windows (of both the application site and neighbouring properties). In my opinion, it therefore makes sense to consider such an extension under Class A, which is designed to deal with structures below roof level and therefore contains limitations to protect the sunlight and daylight of neighbouring properties.
Furthermore, although the appeal decision for June 2009 - Code a00007 dealt with a first floor rear extension to a single storey rear extension, rather than to an original single storey rear projection, the following comment by the Inspector for that case would appear to contradict this case:
“However,
I take Class B to refer to development that would consist entirely of an addition or alteration to the roof. In
this case the development is principally and most obviously an extension to the first floor of the
house”.] The second key issue was whether the proposed extension would be contrary to Class B, part B.1(a), which states that “Development is not permitted by Class B if … any part of the dwellinghouse would, as a result of the works, exceed the height of the highest part of the existing roof”.
The Inspector stated the following:
“However, in my view the
proposal clearly fails criterion (a) which requires that no part of the dwellinghouse would, as a result of the
works, exceed the height of the highest part of the existing roof. I consider that since the height of the
extension would significantly exceed the maximum height of the present sloping roof of the rear addition, this
criterion is not satisfied. I accept that the development would not exceed the height of the roof of the main
part of the dwelling. Indeed it would only reach the eaves level. Nevertheless, in my opinion the criterion
must relate to the roof to which works are being undertaken. If a contrary view were adopted, extensions
greatly in excess of those allowed under Class A of the Order would be permitted, and this would clearly be
contrary to the aims of the Order. I have therefore concluded that planning permission is required for the
proposed extension and that the appeal must fail.”
Main Conclusions:
·
The erection of a first floor
rear extension on top of an original single storey rear projection would fall within the scope of
Class B.
·
The phrase “the highest part of
the existing roof” refers to the part of the house where the works would be carried
out.
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: :: 