Appeal Decision 113 - Certificate of Lawful Development.
This appeal decision summary and
assessment has been produced by Planning Jungle Limited. For more information, please go to www.planningjungle.com/?p=20
|
April 2010 - Code a00113
Summary of Case (appeal
dismissed):
The property is a two-storey
detached house, with a main roof that has a front and rear pitch with gable sides. The application was for a
proposed two-storey rear extension, the roof of which would have joined onto the roof of the main house (with
eaves and ridge-line at matching heights), and two separate rear dormers. Although the description of the
application refers to the proposed rear extension as “two-storey” (i.e. at ground and first floor levels), the
part of this extension that would have joined onto the roof of the main house would also have contained a room
(i.e. at second floor level), meaning that the proposed rear extension could also have been described as
“three-storey”. Those parts of the proposed rear extension that would have been within 2m of the side boundaries
would have been reduced to single storey.
Even though it was not part
of the Council’s reason for refusal, the first key issue that the Inspector raised was whether the proposals
would be contrary to Class A, part A.1(g), which states that “Development is not permitted by Class A if … the
enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would be within 2 metres of the boundary of the curtilage of the
dwellinghouse, and the height of the eaves of the enlarged part would exceed 3 metres”.
The Inspector stated the
following:
“The Council and the
appellant are agreed that the appeal scheme would fulfil all of the limitations set out in paragraph A.1(a),
(b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h) and (i) except that in A.1(i) sub-paragraph (iv). However, whilst for the most
part, I see no reason to disagree, I have considerable reservations about the position arising in respect of the
limitation imposed by paragraph A.1(g). This states:
“A.1 Development is not
permitted by Class A if – …(g) the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would be within 2 metres of the boundary
of the curtilage of the dwellinghouse, and the height of the eaves of the enlarged part would exceed
3m;…”.
Parts of the rear
extension would be located within 2m of the boundary of the curtilage of the dwellinghouse and the height of the
eaves of the “enlarged part” would exceed 3m. But the scheme has been designed with single-storey elements on
either side of the two-storey element such that no part of the proposed structure within 2m of the boundary
would have its eaves exceeding 3m in height. Hence, it is the appellant’s case, not disputed by the Council,
that the scheme would fulfil the terms of the limitation.
However, the proposed part
single- and part two-storey extension, taken together, would comprise an “enlargement”. It would be a single
entity, parts, but not all of which, would be situated within 2m of the boundary of the curtilage. Whilst the
building would straddle the lines of the critical 2m-wide criterion, looked at in-the-round, an observer would
readily identify the siting of such a structure as one that would be situated within 2m of the curtilage
boundary. In respect of an enlargement situated within 2m of the curtilage boundary, paragraph A.1 and A.1(g),
taken together, indicate development would not be permitted if the height of the eaves of the enlarged part
would exceed 3m.
As the eaves of part of
the enlargement would exceed 3m in height, it would not fulfil the limitation of paragraphs A.1 and A.1(g),
taken together. Nothing in the wording in those paragraphs indicates that the enlargement would comply with
the limitation by virtue of the fact that those parts of the enlargement sited on land within the critical
2m-wide criterion would not, in themselves, exceed 3m in height. It would be the siting of the enlargement,
as being one that would encroach within 2m of the curtilage boundary, which would govern the permitted height of
its eaves.”
The second key issue was
whether the proposed rear extension would be contrary to Class A, part A.1(i), which states that “Development is
not permitted by Class A if … it would consist of or include … an alteration to any part of the roof of the
dwellinghouse”.
The Inspector stated the
following:
“Furthermore the part
single-and part two-storey extension and the proposed dormer windows would also fall to be considered against
the limitation in Class A.1 and A.1(i)(iv), taken together, which state:-
“Development is not
permitted by Class A if – (i) it would consist of or include – (i)..., (ii)..., (iii)..., (iv) an alteration to
any part of the roof of the dwellinghouse.”
Here, the proposed dormer
windows and the part single-and part two-storey extension are all part of a single scheme of
operational development that would necessitate alteration to parts of the roof of the dwellinghouse. The
scheme would therefore, in addition, fail to accord with the limitation in Class A.1 and
A.1(i)(iv).”
[Note: In my
opinion, the above conclusion is that Class A does not permit an extension with a roof that would join onto the
roof of the main house in the case where the inside of the roof of the extension would form part of a loft
conversion. However, in my opinion, it is not clear whether the appeal would still have been
dismissed in the alternative case where the inside of the roof of the extension would not have formed
part of a loft conversion.]
Main
Conclusions:
·
Where parts of a proposed
extension are within 2m of a boundary, the 3m eaves height limit applies not just to those parts
within 2m of the boundary, but to all parts of the proposed extension. [Note: This would appear to contradict
at least one other appeal decision – for further information see the entry in the “Reference Section” on
“A.1(g)”] [Relevant to: A.1(g), E.1(d)].
·
Class A does not permit
an extension with a roof that would join onto the roof of the main house in the case where the roof of the
extension would contain dormers / rooflights / habitable rooms / etc. [Note: This would appear to contradict
at least one other appeal decision – for further information see the entry in the “Reference Section” on
“Interaction between Class A, Class B, and Class C”]. [Relevant to: “Interaction between Class A, Class B, and
Class C”, Class A, A.1(i), Class B, B.1(c)].
Links to the “Appeal
Decision Notice” and other associated documents (e.g. drawings, etc):
·
Appeal Decision
Notice:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00113-Appeal-Decision-Notice.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes
·
OS Map: http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00113-OS-Map.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes
·
Drawings: http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00113-Drawings.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes
Download documents and diagrams of
useful
Permitted Development
information
|