Appeal Decision 38 - Certificate of Lawful Development.

The following appeal summary has been written by Steve Speed, and is available on his website www.planningjungle.com

9 November 2009 – 13 Hawthorn Close, Royston, SG8 7JR  

Planning Inspectorate Reference: APP/X1925/X/09/2099772 

Inspector: G P Bailey MRICS 

North Hertfordshire District Council Reference: 09/00004/1PUD 

Summary of Case (appeal dismissed): 

The property is a two-storey semi-detached house, with a large rear garden.  The property has an existing outbuilding in its rear garden, which is adjacent to the side boundary. 

The application would have extended and altered the existing outbuilding to form a changing room, sun lounge and studio.  This would have involved the demolition of its forward-most part, and the extension of its rear-most part.  Although there are no existing elevations, it appears that the existing outbuilding has a pitched roof with a ridge-line at height 3.6m, and that the rearward extension would have maintained this roof form and height, albeit also adding a parapet wall along the side boundary to a height of 2.9m. 

The application would have also erected a proposed new outbuilding, to contain a swimming pool, which would have adjoined the end of the proposed extension to the existing outbuilding.  The maximum height of this proposed new outbuilding would have been 3.2m, and parts (albeit a small minority) of this proposed new outbuilding would have been within 2m of the side boundary.  However, those parts of the proposed new outbuilding within 2m of the boundary would not in, themselves, have had a height greater than 2.5m. 

The first key issue was whether the proposals would be contrary to Class E, part E.1(d), which states that “Development is not permitted by Class E if … the height of the building, enclosure or container would exceed … (ii) 2.5 metres in the case of a building, enclosure or container within 2 metres of the boundary of the curtilage of the dwellinghouse” 

With respect to the proposed new outbuilding, the appellant argued that the 2.5m height limit only applies to those parts of the proposed new outbuilding within 2m of the boundary.  The Council argued that the 2.5m height limit would not just apply to those parts of the proposed new outbuilding within 2m of the boundary, but to all parts of the proposed new outbuilding. 

The Inspector concluded that, where parts of a proposed outbuilding are within 2m of a boundary, the 2.5m height limit applies not just to those parts within 2m of the boundary, but to all parts of the proposed outbuilding.  As such, he concluded that the proposed new outbuilding would not be permitted development.  He also concluded that the proposed extension and alteration to the existing outbuilding, which would involve a parapet wall and ridge-line with a height greater than 2.5m, would not be permitted development. 

Main Conclusions: 

·       Where parts of a proposed outbuilding are within 2m of a boundary, the 2.5m height limit applies not just to those parts within 2m of the boundary, but to all parts of the proposed outbuilding.
[Relevant to: A.1(g), E.1(d)]. 

·       Where an existing outbuilding is within 2m of a boundary and has a height greater than 2.5m, an extension to this outbuilding is still subject to the 2.5m height limit.
[Relevant to: A.1(g), E.1(d)]. 

Link to case on Planning Inspectorate website: 

http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/ViewCase.asp?casename=APP/X1925/X/09/2099772&caseaddress=COO.2036.300.8.1400334