Appeal Decision 188 - Certificate of Lawful Development.

January 2011 - Code a00188

Summary of Case (appeal dismissed): 

The property is a two-storey semi-detached house, with a hipped main roof. The application would have converted this hipped roof into a side gable, and then would have erected a part single-storey / part two-storey rear extension. The single storey part of this rear extension would have been within 2m of the boundary and would have eaves at height no greater than 3m. The two-storey part of this rear extension would have been more than 2m from the boundary, and its roof would have consisted of a rear gable (with eaves at the same height as the main eaves) which would have joined onto the extended main roof (i.e. the rear roof slope of the new main side gable). 

The first key issue 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: 

“On the ground floor, the single-storey kitchen/dining room would virtually extend across the full width of the rear elevation. The maximum eaves height would be below 3m in height but it would be set within 2m of no. 228’s boundary. The first floor room extension would be constructed over the kitchen and it would not extend the full width of the elevation, but at its highest point, its eaves would be about 5m. For the enlargement to benefit from PDR’s, the proposal needs to satisfy all of the criteria in Class A. 

Effectively, the appellant’s main argument is that the proposed rear single/twostorey extensions should be considered separately. On that basis, it is contended that the criteria for single-storey and more than one storey enlargements to the dwellinghouse would be met, due to the siting of the extensions. The evidence, however, suggests that the ground and first floor extensions would be built in a single building operation, due to the design of the projections. The extensions would be physically linked and functionally connected, because of their layout and internal configuration and so there would be a significant degree of attachment. 

In this case, I do not consider that the development should be evaluated against the criteria in Class A as separate components; this is because the ground and first floor addition to the building would not be severable and they would be integral to each other. As a result, the whole development would fail to benefit from PDR’s, because the enlargement to the dwelling would be within 2m of the site’s curtilage and its eaves height would exceed 3m. In addition to this, my approach to this matter is consistent with guidance issued by DCLG. The guidance suggests that where any part of a proposed extension to a house is within 2m of the boundary of the land surrounding the property, then the maximum height of the eaves that is allowed for all parts of the proposal is 3m”. 

Although it had not formed part of the Council’s reason for refusal, the second key issue was whether the proposals 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 plans show that the dwelling’s existing rear roof slope would also be altered due to the addition of a projecting gable roof over the two-storey extension. The roof alterations would be part and parcel of the structure. In effect, the development would consist of an alteration to the fabric of the existing roof shape, because of the two-storey extension’s design. I find that the proposal would also conflict with paragraph A.1(i)(iv) to Class A, which suggests that development would not be permitted if it would consist of, or include, an alteration to any part of the roof of the dwellinghouse”. 

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.
[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=a00188-Appeal-Decision-Notice.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

·       Drawings:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00188-Drawings.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

Download documents and diagrams of useful

Permitted Development information