Appeal Decision 189 - Certificate of Lawful
This appeal decision summary and
assessment has been produced by Planning Jungle Limited. For more information, please go to www.planningjungle.com/?p=20
January 2011 - Code a00189
Summary of Case (appeal
The property is a two-storey
end-of-terrace house with a pitched roof. Part of the main front elevation is set-back resulting in a second
ridge-line at a lower level than the main ridge-line. The application included a proposed part single-storey /
part two-storey rear extension with depth 3m (and eaves projecting to depth 3.32m). 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 involved joining onto the second (lower) ridge-line and raising the latter to the same level as the main
(higher) ridge-line. As the proposals are relatively difficult to describe, please see the submitted
The application also included
a proposed porch. The porch would be located outside part of the front elevation that currently doesn’t contain
an external door (just windows).
The first key issue was
whether the proposed extension would be contrary to Class A, part A.1(f), which states that “Development is not
permitted by Class A if … the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would have more than one storey and … (i)
extend beyond the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse by more than 3 metres”.
The Inspector stated the
“Schedule 2, Part 1, Class
A.1 (f) (i) of the GPDO limits development to the extent that when the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would
have more than one storey it cannot extend beyond the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse by more than 3m.
The Council points out that, including the eaves overhang, the rear extension would have a maximum projection of
3.32m. This is despite the footprint of the extension having a depth of 3m. In my view it is normal practice for
sizes of buildings to be assessed on the basis of their ground coverage. This is a precise measurement.
Measurements of eaves overhangs and gutters can be influenced by, for example, the size of gutters used.
Therefore including such features can be imprecise. Furthermore, as a matter of fact and degree, the eaves and
gutters proposed do not add significantly to the size of the extension. In this context, I consider that the
projecting eaves and gutters of the extension should be set aside when considering its
Such an assessment would
also be in line with the CLG Technical Guidance which advises that measurement of the extension beyond the rear
wall should be made from the base of the rear wall of the original house to the outer edge of the wall of the
extension (not including any guttering or barge boards). Diagrams in the technical guidance show this approach.
On the basis of the above,
the proposed rear extension would meet Class A.1 (f) (i).”
The second 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
“Development is not
permitted by Class A.1 (g) if “the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would be within two metres of the boundary
of the curtilage of the dwellinghouse, and the height of the eaves of the enlarged part would exceed three
metres”. In this case the rear extension would come within 2m of the boundary of the curtilage and the eaves
height of the two storey section would be above 3m. The appellant asserts that because the two storey element
would be inset from the curtilage boundaries and it is only the single storey parts that would come within 2m,
which would have eaves heights of 3m, then the scheme would comply with this limitation. It has further been
suggested that the proposal could be considered as two separate applications. The first would comprise the two
storey element. The second would be for the single storey parts.
However, what is before me
is one application. Therefore the scheme should be considered as a whole. Also, based on the plans before me I
have no doubt that the extension would be undertaken as one building operation. On this basis A.1 (g) would be
breached because the height of the eaves of the two storey element would exceed 3m and this is an
integral part of enlarging the dwellinghouse in a single operation. As one enlarged part, as I read A.1 (g),
no part can have an eaves height that exceeds 3m.
This view is backed up by
the CLG Technical Guidance. It advises that “Where any part of the proposed extension to a house is within two
metres 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 three metres”. In this context it is clear that, even though the roof
pitch of the extension would match the roof pitch of the original dwellinghouse, the rear extension would breach
Class A.1 (g)”.
The third key issue was
whether the proposed “porch” would fall within the scope of Class D, which relates to “The erection or
construction of a porch outside any external door of a dwellinghouse”.
The Inspector stated the
“As far as the front porch
is concerned, it would not be located outside any external door of the dwellinghouse. There may be an intention
to move the front door to where the porch is shown to go. However, the fact is that in the absence of an
external door at the moment, the porch would not be permitted development. The porch would not
therefore comply with Class D of the GPDO.”
Where the rear wall of an
extension would comply with the 3m rear projection limit of Class A, part A.1(f), but the eaves / guttering /
soffit / fascia of the extension would project slightly past this line, then this would still be permitted development.
[Relevant to: A.1(f)].
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
[Relevant to: A.1(g), E.1(d)].
For a proposed “porch” to be
permitted development, it must be outside an existing external door.
[Relevant to: “Interaction between Class A and Class D”,
Class A, Class D].
Links to the “Appeal
Decision Notice” and other associated documents (e.g. drawings, etc):
Download documents and diagrams of