Appeal Decision 27 -
Certificate of Lawful Development.
The
following appeal summary has been written by Steve
Speed, and is available on his website
www.planningjungle.com
28 September 2009 - 4 Turnville
Road, London W14 9PS
Planning
Inspectorate Reference: APP/H5390/X/09/2099326
London
Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Reference:
2008/03422/CLP
Summary of Case (appeal
dismissed):
·
The
property is a three-storey mid-terrace house, and the
application was for a basement extension under the full width
and length of the rear garden. The roof of the basement
would have been at ground level (not projecting above the
latter), such that brick paving directly on top of this roof
would have formed the new surface of the rear garden.
The Inspector noted that Class A (which permits “The
enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a
dwellinghouse”) does not specifically mention basements, but
stated that this does not in itself imply that basements are
not permitted development. He stated that, in his view,
basements do fall within the scope of Class A, and are
therefore permitted development only if they do not infringe
any of the limitations of the Class.
The Inspector then looked specifically at part A.1(e), which
states that “development is not permitted by Class A if … the
enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would … extend beyond the
rear wall of the original dwellinghouse by more than … 3
metres”. The
Inspector concluded that this 3m projection limit does
apply to basements and that therefore the proposed basement,
which would project further than this, would not be permitted
development.
The Inspector also looked at part A.1(a), which relates to “the
total area of ground covered by buildings within the curtilage
of the dwellinghouse”. He noted that
the roof of the proposed basement would form
the new surface of the rear garden and that, whilst this
surface would be no higher than the existing garden
level, none of the original ground would
remain.
However, he concluded that it would be rather “contrived” to regard
that the proposed basement would increase the area of
ground covered by buildings.
However, the Inspector then noted that the creation of the
proposed basement would require the excavation of a substantial
amount of material from across almost the entire rear
garden, which would constitute an “engineering
operation”.
He states
that there is nothing in the GPDO to indicate
that such an operation is permitted development.
[Note: This appeal decision appears highly unusual, because the
Inspector appears to first imply that basements do fall
within Class A, and then imply that basements do not
fall within the GPDO. In my opinion, the excavation
of earth and the subsequent construction of a room below ground
level form one process, namely “the creation of a
basement”. As
such, if it is considered that this process, “the creation of a
basement”, falls under the Class A phrase “the enlargement … of
a dwellinghouse”, and is not contrary to any of the limitations
or conditions or that Class, then this process would be
“permitted development”. This would imply that the
whole process, consisting of all of its integral parts, could
be undertaken without planning permission. It appears irrelevant to then
make a distinction as to whether each integral part of such a
process is “development” in the first place by virtue of being
a “building” operation (for example the construction of a room)
or an “engineering” operation (for example the excavation of
earth), as the GPDO does not make such a
distinction.
Main Conclusion:
·
This appeal decision appears highly unusual,
because the Inspector appears to first imply that
basements do fall within Class A, and then imply
that basements do not fall within the
GPDO. [Relevant
to: A.1(a), A.1(e), Basements]
Link to
case on Planning Inspectorate website:
http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/ViewCase.asp?casename=APP/H5390/X/09/2099326&caseaddress=COO.2036.300.8.1356301
Download
documents and diagrams of
useful
Permitted
Development information

|