Permitted Development England
How to build a
home extension without Planning Permission using your PD rights - Oct. 1st
2008
|
|||||||||
Appeal Decision 123 - Certificate of Lawful Development.
Summary of Case (both appeals allowed):
The property is a semi-detached house. The applications were for a proposed single storey rear extension, and a proposed rear dormer.
The outer wall of the proposed single storey rear extension would have projected 3m from the rear wall of the main house, but the soffit and fascia of the flat roof of this extension would have then projected slightly past this line.
The first key issue was whether the projection of this soffit and fascia by more than 3m beyond the rear wall of the original house would be contrary to Class A, part A.1(e), which states that “development is not permitted by Class A if … the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would … extend beyond the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse by more than … 3 metres”.
The Inspector stated the following:
“The Council contend that the extension falls foul of the GPDO in that it would be 3.188 metres in depth. The appellant contends that the Council’s measurement includes the soffit and fascia and that is incorrect as borne out by government advice found on the planning portal. The 3 metres depth referred to in the GPDO should be measured to the rearmost brick wall and not the fascia.
It is common practice for measurements of buildings to be taken between the corners of outer walls. These can be precise measurements and, amongst other things, are used for setting out purposes and to calculate ground coverage or volumes. In my opinion including eaves overhangs, fascias and guttering would be imprecise. Furthermore, the proposed development including the guttering, as a matter of fact and degree, does not add significantly to the size of the extension.
In this case it is reasonable, in my opinion, for the projecting soffit and fascia to be set aside in calculating its extent. The proposed extension would not, as shown on the submitted plans, extend beyond the rear wall of the semidetached dwelling by more than 3 metres. Therefore it would satisfy criterion (e) of section A.1 of the GPDO and would be development permitted under Class A.”
The proposed rear dormer would have been set back by more than 20cm from the outer edge of the section of the roof overhanging the rear wall of the house, but less than 20cm from the point where the vertical plane of this wall meets the slope of the roof.
The second key issue was whether the proposed rear dormer would be contrary to Class B, part B.2(b), which states that “Development is permitted by Class B subject to the following conditions … (b) other than in the case of a hip-to-gable enlargement, the edge of the enlargement closest to the eaves of the original roof shall, so far as practicable, be not less than 20 centimetres from the eaves of the original roof”.
The Inspector stated the following:
“The Council contend that the extension falls foul of the GPDO in that the resultant enlargement would not be set back by 20 cms from the eaves of the original roof. Unfortunately, the Council have submitted no reasoning why they deem that to be the case. The appellant contends that the measurement should be taken from the edge of the roof where the eaves begin.
There is general agreement that the 20 cms in these cases should be measured along the slope of the main house roof. The appeal property has boxed eaves which results in part of the roof overhanging the main walls. It is apparent, from the Council’s standard assessment sheet, that they have taken the measurement from the point or line where the vertical plane of the wall of the house meets the slope of the roof. That conflicts with the appellant’s view that it should be taken from the outer edge of the slope and his measurement of approximately 400mm set-back from that point is undisputed.
In my opinion both arguments have some merit; the recently amended GPDO is open to alternative interpretations. The term “eaves” is not defined in the legislation, but usually refers to the overhanging or projecting part of the roof where it is constructed with its outer edge projecting beyond the wall below. That view is supported by The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary which says:- “The projecting edge of a roof, etc., which overhangs the side.” Also, at a more technical level, the Oxford Dictionary of Architecture and Landscape Architecture (James Stevens Curl OUP 1999) says:- “Eave (pl.eaves). Sheltered area under eaves. Eaves. Lowest part of a pitched roof projecting beyond the *naked of the wall below. *Naked. Unadorned plain surface of anything, but especially the main plane of a building’s façade.”
The GPDO does not refer to “the outer edge of the eaves” nor, on the other hand, does it specify any other point where the eaves meet the wall below. The appellant refers to a diagram from the Planning Portal which illustrates the requirements of the GPDO. Whilst it is not to scale and the arrow indicating the 20cms is overly large, and cannot be relied upon as a determinative illustration of where the measurement should be taken from, it does nevertheless show the aim of the Order. Namely, that there should be a gap between the edge of the roof and the front of the dormer.
The proposal before me does show such a gap and from the side elevation plans it shows the face of the dormer being set-back slightly from the face of the main wall of the house. It is that point which would, in some circumstances, support the view that the measurement should not be taken from the outer edge of the eaves. For example, where the eaves of a roof extend further than 20cms beyond the vertical planes of the main walls. Given the appellant’s interpretation, a roof extension could be constructed outside of the main wall of the dwelling. If that were practicable it would result in an unsightly building and would not, in my opinion, be something that is envisaged by the GPDO.
Given these alternative interpretations and taking into account the particular merits of this case, which would result in a dormer window set back from the eaves and vertical planes of the main walls. I conclude that the proposed roof extension would be more than 20cms from the eaves of the original roof and would satisfy condition B.2 (b) of the GPDO and therefore would be permitted development under Class B.”
[Note: As far as I’m aware, this is only the second appeal decision that has addressed the issue of whether the 20cm set back (as required by Class B, part B.2(b)) should be measured from the point where the vertical plane of the wall meets the slope of the roof, or from the outer edge of the sloping roof. The first appeal decision (February 2010 - Code a00092) contained a lengthy argument in favour of the former interpretation, whilst this second appeal decision (June 2010 - Code a00123) contains a lengthy argument in favour of the latter interpretation. Regardless of which of these interpretations is correct, I’m not convinced by the suggestion in the penultimate paragraph quoted above that the point from which the 20cm set back should be measured might in some way depend on whether the overhang of the eaves is more or less than 20cm].
Main Conclusions:
·
Where the rear wall of an
extension would comply with the 3m/4m rear projection limit of Class A, part A.1(e), but the eaves /
guttering / soffit / fascia of the extension would project slightly past this line, then this would still be permitted development.
·
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.
Links to the “Appeal Decision Notice” and other associated documents (e.g. drawings, etc):
·
Appeal Decision
Notice:
·
OS Map:
·
Existing
Elevations:
·
Proposed
Elevations:
Download documents and diagrams of useful Permitted Development information
| |||||||||
|
©2020 - Christopher Hunt :: This page
last updated: :: 