Permitted Development England
How to build a
home extension without Planning Permission using your PD rights - Oct. 1st
2008
|
|||||||||
Appeal Decision 193 - Certificate of Lawful Development.
Summary of Case (appeal allowed):
The property is a two-storey mid-terrace house, with an original two-storey rear projection. The application was for a proposed “L”-shaped dormer, which would have been across both the rear roof of the main part of the house as well as the side roof of the original two-storey rear projection.
The Council’s reason for refusal was as follows:
“The proposed part second floor extension to the back addition of [the application site] does not fall within the limits of permitted development as set out in Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No. 2) ( England) Order 2008. Therefore planning permission is required for the works”.
The Inspector stated the following:
“The structure that would be erected on the original rear projection would occupy only a limited proportion of the plane of the existing slope of the roof. As such, the roof would clearly remain recognisable in form and function as a roof. Hence, it could not be said that the original roof of the rear projection would be subsumed into the new structure to such an extent that the scheme would go much further than a mere “alteration” or “addition” to that roof.
I conclude therefore that, as a matter of fact and degree, the proposed development would alter and add to the roof of the dwellinghouse. As indicated earlier, the scheme would not fail to satisfy the limitations imposed on development set out in paragraph B.1 (a)-(e) in Class B. Consequently, the proposed development would fall within the terms of Class B of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the GPDO, subject to compliance with the conditions set out in paragraph B.2 of Class B”.
[Note: This appeal decision is connected to January 2011 - Code a00194, as the two properties adjoin one-another].
[Note: The appeal decision notice was particularly long, and the extract above represents only a relatively small proportion of the Inspector’s comments. It should be noted that both sides referred to other previous appeal decisions].
[Note: Although the submitted drawings appear to show a proposed single storey side infill extension, it was confirmed during the informal hearing that these works were not part of this application for a certificate of lawfulness].
[Note: By allowing this appeal, the Inspector supports a number of other conclusions, as indicated below].
Main Conclusions:
·
Where a property has an original
rear projection (with a roof at a similar level to the main roof) then an extension (e.g. a dormer) on the
roof of the original rear projection would fall within the scope of Class B (i.e. rather than
Class A).
·
The phrase “the highest part of
the existing roof” refers to the house as a whole (i.e. the main ridge-line), and not just the
part of the house where the works would be carried out.
·
For example, where a property
has an original rear projection, a dormer on the roof of the latter structure is limited by the height of the
main ridge-line of the house, and not by the height of the ridge-line of the original rear
projection.
·
Where the eaves of an original
two-storey rear projection are at a lower level than the eaves of the main rear roof, the requirement to be
not less than 20cm from the eaves of the original roof would not prevent an “L”-shaped dormer that
extends from the former roof to the latter roof.
Links to the “Appeal Decision Notice” and other associated documents (e.g. drawings, etc):
·
Appeal Decision
Notice:
·
OS Map:
·
Drawings:
Download documents and diagrams of useful Permitted Development information
| |||||||||
|
©2020 - Christopher Hunt :: This page
last updated: :: 