Permitted Development England
How to build a
home extension without Planning Permission using your PD rights - Oct. 1st
2008
|
|||||||||
Appeal Decision 161 - Certificate of Lawful Development.
Summary of Case (appeal dismissed):
The property is a two-storey semi-detached house, which has previously been significantly extended. From the submitted drawings and the OS map, it appears that these extensions consist of a two-storey side extension, a two-storey rear extension, and a single storey rear extension. The latter structure is relatively high, with its ridge-line only slightly below the level of the eaves of the two-storey rear extension. The application was for a proposed roof extension.
The key issue was whether the proposed enlargement of the roof would be contrary to Class B, part B.1(c), which states that “Development is not permitted by Class B if … the cubic content of the resulting roof space would exceed the cubic content of the original roof space by more than— (i) 40 cubic metres in the case of a terrace house, or (ii) 50 cubic metres in any other case”.
The Inspector stated the following:
“Council records indicate that three previous extensions to this property have been carried out which resulted in increases to its roof space. These have, cumulatively, increased the property’s roof space by about 50.4 cubic metres, and this figure has not been challenged, in detail, by the appellant. His argument is, rather, that at least one of the previous extensions was single storey only and resulted, not in an enlargement of the original roof space, but the creation of an additional, separate, roof space. This was at a lower level than, and physically unconnected to, the house’s main roof space. The appellant suggests, therefore, that the volume of this roof should not be taken as part of the 50 cubic metres tolerance. The Council rejects this interpretation.
I shall first examine the meaning of the term “original roof space”. It is not unrealistic or fanciful to envisage a house built with two or more elements with separate, unconnected roofs. The GPDO makes no specific reference to such a situation and I cannot see any realistic alternative, in such a case, to taking “original roof space” to mean the volume of the two elements of the roof added together. I believe that “original roof space” should in general be taken to mean the whole of the roof space in a house as built, whether or not that space is interconnected, and even if one roof is at a lower level than the other. Any other interpretation would require a detailed and specific definition of roof space, and the GPDO contains no such definition.
On the basis of this interpretation enlargement of the original roof space must, to be consistent, be taken to apply to all extensions to the house which result in a greater volume of roof space, irrespective of whether or not they are physically connected to any other part of the house’s roof. Such an interpretation is consistent with the memorandum which accompanied the GPDO and references in it to the aims of this part of the GPDO. I see no reason for any further speculation as to the intentions of the Order. On the basis of the foregoing, and the Council’s unchallenged calculations, it is clear that the result of the present proposal would be a roof space whose volume would be more than 50 cubic metres greater than the house’s original roof space. It would not, therefore, be permitted by GPDO Schedule 2 Part 1 B. The appellant has not sought to claim that it would be permitted by any other part of the GPDO”.
[Note: I’m fairly certain that the final conclusion of this appeal decision (i.e. that the roof of a single storey extension that doesn’t join onto the roof of the main house can reduce the volume allowance remaining under Class B) contradicts a number of previous appeal decisions. However, this type of interpretation is not something that I have looked out for when summarising previous appeal decisions, and therefore I have no record of what previous appeal decisions have concluded on this issue. It should also be noted that for this particular case, the existing single storey rear extension is relatively high, with its ridge-line only slightly below the level of the eaves of the existing two-storey rear extension. However, in making his interpretation, the Inspector does not appear to refer to this height as a decisive factor].
Main Conclusions:
·
Where there is an existing
extension with a roof that joins onto the roof of the main house, then this will reduce the volume allowance
that remains for roof extensions under Class B, part B.1(c).
·
Furthermore, even if the roof of
the existing extension doesn’t contain any dormers / rooflights / habitable rooms / etc, this will still
reduce the volume allowance that remains for roof extensions under Class B, part
B.1(c).
·
Where there is an existing
extension, then even if its roof is at a lower level and doesn’t join onto the roof of the main house its
volume will reduce the volume allowance that remains for roof extensions under Class B, part
B.1(c).
Links to the “Appeal Decision Notice” and other associated documents (e.g. drawings, etc):
· Appeal Decision
Notice: · OS
Map: · Existing Front and Rear
Elevations: · Existing Side
Elevation: · Proposed
Drawings:
Download documents and diagrams of useful Permitted Development information
| |||||||||
|
©2020 - Christopher Hunt :: This page
last updated: :: 