Permitted Development England
How to build a
home extension without Planning Permission using your PD rights - Oct. 1st
2008
|
|||||||||
Appeal Decision 227 - Certificate of Lawful Development.
Summary of Case (appeal dismissed):
The property is a two-storey semi-detached house, which has an existing single storey rear extension with depth approx 4m. The application was for a proposed first floor rear extension with depth approx 2.9m.
The key issue was whether the proposed first floor rear 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 following:
“The planning history of the appeal property indicates that the existing ground floor rear extension was built in 1993 as an addition to the original dwelling. I have no evidence to indicate otherwise. The 3m depth limitation in A.1(e) refers to enlargements having a single storey. However, the correct way to view the property is as a dwelling having an enlarged part which is more than one storey. This is because both A.1(e) and A.1(f) treat as the “enlarged part” of a dwelling any part which extends beyond the rear wall of the “original dwellinghouse” – in other words, the dwelling as originally built.
The provisions of A.1(f) therefore apply to both the existing and proposed extensions in so far as, together, they comprise the enlarged part of the dwelling. It says that development is not permitted if the enlarged part extends beyond 3m of the rear wall of the original dwelling. On my visit, I measured the depth of the existing extension at around 4m. In the light of this, there are no permitted development rights for any further enlargement. This is made clear in the technical guidance issued by the Government in August 2010 to help householders and others understand the provisions of Part 1 as amended. The text and diagram at the top of p20 of the guidance are directly relevant to this case. A.1(g) applies with regard to distances to plot boundaries but as an additional, not an alternative, requirement.
The appellant points out that the technical guidance does not have statutory force and that the Council should not make decisions based on it alone. I agree that it is not of itself law but, as an aid to interpreting the provisions of the GPDO, it amounts to a material consideration to which I attach significant weight. No evidence in relation to the appeal property has been offered as to why I should not follow its provisions in this case. As to the site at 225 Great West Road, Hounslow on which, the appellant says, a LDC was granted in similar circumstances, the Council accept that that was before the position had been clarified in the technical guidance.”
Main Conclusions:
·
Class A, part A.1(f) applies
not only to a proposed two-storey rear extension, but also to a proposed first floor rear
extension on top of an existing ground floor rear extension.
·
If a property has an
existing ground floor rear extension with depth greater than 3m, then it would not be possible
to erect any first floor rear extension on top of the latter, because Class A, part A.1(f) would restrict
both storeys to a depth of 3m.
Links to the “Appeal Decision Notice” and other associated documents (e.g. drawings, etc):
·
Appeal Decision
Notice:
·
OS Map:
·
Existing
Drawings:
·
Proposed
Drawings:
Download documents and diagrams of useful Permitted Development information
| |||||||||
|
©2020 - Christopher Hunt :: This page
last updated: :: 