Appeal Decision 150 - Certificate of Lawful Development.

November 2010 - Code a00150

Summary of Case (appeal dismissed): 

The property is a semi-detached house. The property has an existing outbuilding at the end of its rear garden, close to the rear and side boundaries, with height 2.5m along one side and height 2.56m along the other side. The application was for a proposed conservatory, with height not exceeding 2.4m, which would have been attached to the front of the existing outbuilding (still maintaining a distance from the rear elevation of the main house). 

The key issue was whether the proposals would be contrary to Class E, part E.1(d), which states that “Development is not permitted by Class E if … the height of the building, enclosure or container would exceed … (ii) 2.5 metres in the case of a building, enclosure or container within 2 metres of the boundary of the curtilage of the dwellinghouse” 

The Inspector stated the following: 

“The proposal is to construct a shallow mono-pitched roofed extension, not exceeding 2.4 metres in height. The extension would be attached to part of an existing outbuilding. At my site visit, measurements were taken (and agreed by the parties) of the western and eastern walls of the outbuilding. These were respectively 2.5m and 2.56m. 

Class E.1 (d) of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the GPDO comprises provisos relating to the size and location of permitted development. The proviso relevant in this case is that which states that for the development to be permitted by the GPDO, amongst other things, the height of the building must not exceed 2.5 metres in the case of a building within 2 metres of the boundary of the curtilage of the dwellinghouse. 

It is not disputed that the proposed extension would lie within 2m of a boundary of the curtilage. The issue between the parties is whether the limit of 2.5m applies to the proposed extension alone or to the building comprising the extension and the existing outbuilding. The Council take the view that the height limit should be applied to the latter, which they describe as “the enlarged building”. 

The parties have not referred me to any case law or ministerial advice on this issue. However, the terms of E.(a) of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the GPDO seem clear enough to me to dispose of this point. It states under the heading “Permitted development” “The provision within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse of (a) any building…”. To my mind, there is no doubt that the action of the appellant in adding the extension to the outbuilding would have the effect of providing a building. It then follows that the limiting height of 2.5m referred to in Class E.1(d) of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the GPDO is applied to the two elements forming “the building”. 

As the height of the eastern wall of the existing outbuilding exceeds 2.5m, the proposal to construct the extension would not be permitted development under the GPDO”. 

Main Conclusions: 

·       Where an existing outbuilding is within 2m of a boundary and has a height greater than 2.5m, then any extension to this outbuilding will automatically fail Class E, part E.1(d). This is on the basis that it is the combined structure (rather than just the new extension) that must be assessed against the height limitation.
[Relevant to: E.1(d)].

Links to the “Appeal Decision Notice” and other associated documents (e.g. drawings, etc): 

·       Appeal Decision Notice:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00150-Appeal-Decision-Notice.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

·       OS Map:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00150-OS-Map.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

·       Proposed Sketch:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00150-Proposed-Sketch.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

Download documents and diagrams of useful

Permitted Development information