Appeal Decision 29 -
Certificate of Lawful
Development.
22
September 2009 – Bywood, Honeypot
Lane,
Edenbridge, Kent, TN8 6QJ
Planning
Inspectorate Reference:
APP/G2245/X/09/2100324
Inspector:
Neil Roberts BA DipTP MRTPI
Sevenoaks
District Council Reference:
SE/08/02470/LDCPR
Summary
of Case (appeal dismissed):
The
property is a detached house. The application was for a
proposed outbuilding, which would have used as a
bedroom. The
proposed outbuilding would have been sited on a raised
platform, which appears from the drawings to have height
0.4m.
The
first key issue was whether the proposed outbuilding would
be contrary to Class E, part E.1(g), which states that
“Development is not permitted by Class E if …it would
include the construction or provision of a veranda, balcony
or raised platform”.
The
Inspector noted that paragraph I of Part 1, which provides
an Interpretation of Part 1, states that that ““raised” in
relation to a platform means a platform with a height
greater than 300 millimetres”. He therefore concluded
that the proposed outbuilding not be permitted
development.
The
second key issue was whether the proposed outbuilding would
be contrary to Class E, part E.1(h), which states that
“Development is not permitted by Class E if … it relates to
a dwelling”.
The
Inspector stated the following:
“In my
judgement the commonsense interpretation of E.1(h) is that
it applies where the proposal is to construct a building
which provides primary residential accommodation, such as
living rooms or bedrooms, which are basic elements of a
dwelling. As the proposed building is intended to include a
bedroom, and having regard to the reasons for wanting extra
bedroom accommodation (*), I consider the proposal conflicts
with E.1 (h).”
[* = The
appellants had stated that the existing accommodation in the
house is cramped, that an existing lounge is having to be used
as a bedroom, and that the proposed outbuilding would provide
private sleeping accommodation for the
appellants].
Main Conclusions:
·
Where a proposed outbuilding would involve a raised platform
with height greater than 300mm, it would not be
permitted development. [Relevant
to: E.1(g)].
·
Where a proposed outbuilding would include a bedroom, which
would add to the ordinary living accommodation provided by the
property, it would not be permitted
development. [Relevant
to: E.1(h)].
Link to
case on Planning Inspectorate website:
http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/ViewCase.asp?casename=APP/G2245/X/09/2100324&caseaddress=COO.2036.300.8.1431191
Link to
LPA website:
|