Appeal Decision 81 - Certificate of Lawful Development.

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

18 January 2010 – The Chalet, 8 Pilgrims Way, Reigate RH2 9LG  

Planning Inspectorate Reference: APP/L3625/X/09/2106182 

Inspector: Bridget M Campbell BA(Hons) MRTPI 

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council Reference: P/09/00462/CLP 

Summary of Case (appeal dismissed): 

The property is a detached house, to the east of Pilgrims Way, with longer elevations facing south and north, and shorter elevations facing west and east.  The application was for a proposed outbuilding to the east of the property, and a proposed two-storey extension to the southern elevation.  The proposed outbuilding would have had a significant footprint (much larger than the footprint of the main house), and would have had a ridge-line at height 4m.  Part of the proposed outbuilding would have been within 2m of a boundary, although it appears that this part in itself would not have exceeded 2.5m in height.  The Council did not include the proposed outbuilding in its reason for refusal. 

The proposed two-storey extension would have had a significant footprint (comparable to the footprint of the main house) and its roof would have joined onto the roof of the main house, with matching ridge-line and eaves. 

The first key issue was whether the proposed outbuilding 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” 

The Inspector stated the following: 

“Class E permits the provision, within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse, of a building required for an incidental purpose subject to a number of limitations. Both the Council and Appellant consider these are met. I do not agree. Limitation E.1 (d) (ii) says development is not permitted by this Class if the height of the building would exceed 2.5 metres in the case of a building within 2 metres of the boundary of the curtilage. The building is one which comes within 2 metres of the boundary and its height at the ridge is shown as 4 metres above the highest natural ground adjacent to it. The limitation is not met. E.1 (d) (ii) does not say that only that part of the building which is within 2 metres of the boundary may not exceed 2.5 metres in height – an interpretation which both parties appear to have adopted. The word “height” in E.1 (d) is clearly referenced to the height of the building. Regardless of the intention behind the limitation or the fact that a different building could be built as permitted development which might have a greater impact, there is no discretion to interpret the words of the Order where the meaning is clear other than in the way in which they have been written”. 

The second key issue was whether the proposed side 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: 

“Class A of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the GPDO permits the enlargement of a dwellinghouse, again subject to a number of limitations. Limitation A.1 (i) (iv) says 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 Appellant says the roof of the extension would abut the original roof slope but would not alter it in any way and the Council concurs with this view. The pitched roofs of the extension are, however, shown as butting into the existing roof slope. That must necessarily involve the alteration of the existing roof of the dwellinghouse; there would be a physical change to the existing roof. Limitation A.1 (i) (iv) is not met and thus the extension would not be permitted by Class A. The extension does not fall to be considered under Class B as that only addresses the enlargement of a dwellinghouse “consisting of” and not “including” an addition or alteration to its roof”. 

The Inspector also discussed whether, for this particular property, the west elevation or the south elevation is “the principal elevation”.  He concluded that the west elevation is the principal one, and that therefore the proposed extension would be a two-storey side extension contrary to Class A, part A.1(h). 

[Note: The conclusion that Class A does not permit an extension with a roof that would join onto the roof of the main house would appear to contradict the illustrations on pages 56-61 of the Householder Development Consents Review (2007), which implied that the intention of the legislation was to allow such development.  However, the latter document is a consultation document that pre-dates the final legislation, and therefore carries limited (if any) weight]. 

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)]. 

·       Class A does not permit an extension with a roof that would join onto the roof of the main house.
[Relevant to: A.1(i)]. 

Link to case on Planning Inspectorate website: 

http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/ViewCase.asp?casename=APP/L3625/X/09/2106182&caseaddress=COO.2036.300.8.1887851 

Link to LPA website: 

www.reigate-banstead.gov.uk 

Download documents and diagrams of useful

Permitted Development information