Permitted Development England
How to build a
home extension without Planning Permission using your PD rights - Oct. 1st
2008
|
|||||||||
Appeal Decision 200 - Certificate of Lawful Development.
Summary of Case (appeal dismissed):
The property is a two-storey (including roof level) semi-detached house. The property has an existing two-storey side extension, with a roof that joins onto the roof of the main house. The application was for a proposed two-storey rear extension, with a roof that would join onto the roof of the main house.
The key issue was whether the proposed extension 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:
“Having regard to the above, the proposal is not permitted development under Class A only by virtue of failing the limitation in A1.(i)(iv). However, there is another class, Class B of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the GPDO, which permits additions and alterations to the roof. I have therefore considered whether the limitations in that Class are met.”
The Inspector then assessed whether the proposed extension would comply with the 50m3 limit of Class B, part B.1(c) as follows:
“I was shown at my visit that the first floor bedrooms in the cottage are built partly within the slope of the roof although there is also a restricted roof space above accessed through a number of hatches in the ceiling. No measured calculations of the volumes of either original or proposed roof space have been submitted by either party although the Council has provided an estimate which, it contends, shows that the previous two storey side extension together with the proposed extension would increase the volume of the roof space over that of the original by more than 50 cubic metres and would, therefore, fail the limitation in B.1(c)(ii).
The Council’s assessment does not make clear exactly what is included, but from my own observations at the site visit I have no doubt that the previous two storey extension and that now proposed would, cumulatively, substantially increase the volume of the roof space compared to that of the original cottage. Moreover, the appellant has offered no criticism of the Council’s estimated figure.
Circular 10/972 states (at paragraph 8.12) that in an LDC application the onus of proof is firmly on the applicant. Although there is some doubt in this case as to the actual size of the increase in the roof space that would result there is no substantive evidence before me from the appellant which shows that, taking into account the previous two storey side extension, the increase in the roof space would be under 50 cubic metres. Moreover, that is not self evident. I am, therefore, unable to conclude that the extension would amount to permitted development.”
The Inspector also dismissed the appellant’s application for costs against the Council.
Main Conclusions:
·
Class A does permit an
extension with a roof that would join onto the roof of the main house.
·
Where a Class A extension would
have a roof that would join onto the roof of the main house, then the extension should also be
assessed against Class B (note: in this particular case, the roof of the extension would contain
dormers / rooflights / habitable rooms / etc).
·
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).
·
In an application for a
certificate of lawfulness, the burden of proof is firmly on the
applicant.
Links to the “Appeal Decision Notice” and other associated documents (e.g. drawings, etc):
·
Appeal Decision
Notice:
·
OS Map:
·
Floor Plans:
·
Elevations:
·
Costs Decision
Notice:
Download documents and diagrams of useful Permitted Development information
| |||||||||
|
©2020 - Christopher Hunt :: This page
last updated: :: 