Appeal Decision 87 - Certificate of Lawful Development.
This appeal decision summary and
assessment has been produced by Planning Jungle Limited. For more information, please go to www.planningjungle.com/?p=20
January 2010 - Code a00087
Summary of Case (appeal
The property is a
semi-detached house, and the application was for a proposed outbuilding in the rear garden. The main part of this structure would have had a dual-pitch roof rising from
height 2.4m at the eaves to height 3.9m at the ridge-line, and none of this main part would have been within 2m
of the boundary. The secondary part of this structure would have
had a mono-pitch roof rising to height 2.5m at the ridge-line (and a front parapet wall at height 2.5m), and
part of this secondary part would have been within 2m of the boundary.
The 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
The Inspector stated the
“It seems to me that the
building has been designed with the specific intention of falling within the appellant’s interpretation of
Schedule 2, Part 1, Class E of the GPDO. The Council accepts that the proposed building is not subject to any of
the exclusions set out in Schedule 2, Part 1, Class E, E.1 (a) –(c), (f) or (g) and I consider that it would
also comply with (e) since the eaves would not exceed 2.5m.
However, the mono-pitched
roof element would only be accessed either via the side door or what appears to be an up-and-over main door to
the garage element; it would have no independent door in any of the three external elevations. Furthermore, as
there would be no internal wall separating the two parts, the building would have a single internal space. In my
opinion the Council is correct to consider the proposed detached garage as a single building, albeit with
an unusual roof design.
Schedule 2, Part 1, Class
E E.1 (d) specifies height restrictions for ‘the building’, enclosure or container within the curtilage of a
dwellinghouse which, if exceeded, means the development is not permitted under the GPDO. As set out above, the
proposed building would have a ridge height of some 3.9m and would be within 2m of the curtilage boundary. It
would therefore not be permitted development by virtue of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class E E.1 (d) (ii) which
specifies a height limit of 2.5m for a building so located in relation to the curtilage boundary. Express
planning permission is therefore required for the development proposed”.
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.
[Note: This would appear to contradict
at least one other appeal decision – for further information see the entry in the “Reference Section” on
[Relevant to: A.1(g), E.1(d)].
Links to the “Appeal
Decision Notice” and other associated documents (e.g. drawings, etc):
Download documents and diagrams of