Permitted Development England
How to build a
home extension without Planning Permission using your PD rights - Oct. 1st
2008
|
|||||||||
Certificate of Lawful Development Appeal Decisions by category of development.The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)
Order 1995
Class B development
· · See entries under separate heading “Interaction between Class A, Class B, and Class C”.
·
Where the proposed works to a
roof are so great as to require a substantial, or complete, demolition and rebuilding of the roof,
then the works would not be permitted development. This is on the basis that such works would
not constitute an “addition” or “alteration” to the roof, and therefore would not
fall within either Class B or Class C.
B.1(a):
· See entries under separate heading “Height”.
B.1(b):
· See entries under separate heading “Principal Elevation”. · See entries under separate heading “Fronts a highway”. · See entries under separate heading “Highway”.
B.1(c):
· See entries under separate heading “Interaction between Class A, Class B, and Class C”. · See entries under separate heading “Detached dwellinghouse” (versus “any other dwellinghouse”) and “terrace house” (versus “in any other case”)
B.1(d):
· See entries under separate heading “Juliette balconies”. · See entries relating to chimneys, flues, and soil and vent pipes under separate heading “Class G”.
B.1(e):
· No entries.
B.2(a):
· See entries under separate heading “Materials”. · See entries under separate heading “Conditions”. · See entries relating to the phrase “of a similar appearance” under separate heading “A.3(a)”.
B.2(b):
· See entries under separate heading “Conditions”. · See entries relating to the phrase “so far as practicable” under separate heading “A.3(c)”.
·
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.
·
For the purposes of the 20cm set
back, the term “eaves” applies to all of the section of the roof overhanging the wall, and not
just to the outer edge of this section. As such, the 20cm set back should be measured from the point where
the vertical plane of the wall meets the slope of the roof, rather than from the outer edge of the
sloping roof.
·
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.
·
In order for a dormer extension
to comply with Class B, part B.2(b), there needs to remain a continuous strip of at least 20cm of
original roof slope below the base of the dormer. It is not possible to comply with this condition by
saying that the dormer would be set-back 20cm from the notional point where the original eaves would have
been when the latter has been removed.
·
Furthermore, in such a case
where a dormer doesn’t comply with Class B, part B.2(b) because the original eaves have been removed, it is
not possible to comply with this condition by reintroducing the eaves.
·
It is possible to comply
with Class B, part B.2(b) by saying that the dormer would be set-back 20cm from the notional point where the
original eaves would have been when the latter has been removed.
·
The assessment of whether a 20cm
set-back is “practicable” should focus on structural and practical
considerations.
·
The fact that the 20cm set-back
of a roof extension would result in additional cost is not sufficient in itself to justify that
such a set-back would not be “practicable”.
·
The fact that the 20cm set-back
of a roof extension would result in additional delay is not sufficient in itself to justify
that such a set-back would not be “practicable”.
·
The desire to have greater
floor space in a proposed roof extension is not a sound basis to show that a 20cm set-back is not
“practicable”.
·
Where an applicant claims that a
20cm set-back is not practicable, the burden of proof is firmly on the applicant to demonstrate
that such a set-back is not practicable, for example by providing structural calculations, rather than
for the Council to seek an opinion from its Building Control section.
·
For a proposed rear dormer, the
Inspector concluded that it was insufficient for the applicant to simply show a 20cm set-back from the
eaves of the original roof (with an annotation confirming this) without also demonstrating that such a set-back is practicable to
construct, for example by considering the size, type, and gauge of the roof tile.
B.2(c):
· See entries under separate heading “A side elevation of the original dwellinghouse”. · See entries under separate heading “Obscure-glazed and non-opening”. · See entries under separate heading “Conditions”.
B.3:
· No entries.
Download documents and diagrams of useful Permitted Development information
| |||||||||
|
©2020 - Christopher Hunt :: This page
last updated: :: 