ask us a question on permitted development           Permitted Development England
How to build a home extension  without Planning Permission using your PD rights - Oct. 1st 2008

  

 

Home Page About Us FAQ Advertise on this site Disclaimer Privacy Contact Us Site Map

Certificate of Lawful Development Appeal Decisions by category of development.

The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995
Part 1 (as amended on 1 October 2008) 

 

 

This appeal decision summary and assessment has been produced by Planning Jungle Limited.  For more information, please go to  www.planningjungle.com/?p=20
 

Class B development

 

 

 

·      

·       See entries under separate heading “Interaction between Class A, Class B, and Class C”.

 

·       Where the proposed works to a roof are so great as to require a substantial, or complete, demolition and rebuilding of the roof, then the works would not be permitted development. This is on the basis that such works would not constitute an “addition” or “alteration” to the roof, and therefore would not fall within either Class B or Class C.
[Source: October 2010 - Code a00144].

 

 

B.1(a): 

 

·       See entries under separate heading “Height”.

 

 

B.1(b): 

 

·       See entries under separate heading “Principal Elevation”.

·       See entries under separate heading “Fronts a highway”.

·       See entries under separate heading “Highway”.

 

 

B.1(c): 

 

·       See entries under separate heading “Interaction between Class A, Class B, and Class C”.

·       See entries under separate heading “Detached dwellinghouse” (versus “any other dwellinghouse”) and “terrace house” (versus “in any other case”)

 

 

B.1(d): 

 

·       See entries under separate heading “Juliette balconies”. 

·       See entries relating to chimneys, flues, and soil and vent pipes under separate heading “Class G”.

 

 

B.1(e): 

 

·       No entries.

 

 

B.2(a): 

 

·       See entries under separate heading “Materials”.

·       See entries under separate heading “Conditions”.

·       See entries relating to the phrase “of a similar appearance” under separate heading “A.3(a)”.

 

 

B.2(b): 

 

·       See entries under separate heading “Conditions”.

·       See entries relating to the phrase “so far as practicable” under separate heading “A.3(c)”.

 

·       For the purposes of the 20cm set back, the term “eaves” applies just to the outer edge of the section of the roof overhanging the wall. As such, the 20cm set back should be measured from the outer edge of the sloping roof.
[Note: This contradicts the entry below].
[Source: June 2010 - Code a00123].
[Source: “DCLG - Permitted development for householders - Technical guidance” (August 2010)].
[Source:
December 2010 - Code a00171].
[Source:
December 2010 - Code a00178].
[Source: March 2011 - Code a00225].
[Source: March 2011 - Code a00226].
[Source:
May 2011 - Code a00244].

 

·       For the purposes of the 20cm set back, the term “eaves” applies to all of the section of the roof overhanging the wall, and not just to the outer edge of this section. As such, the 20cm set back should be measured from the point where the vertical plane of the wall meets the slope of the roof, rather than from the outer edge of the sloping roof.
[Note: This contradicts the entry above].
[Source: February 2010 - Code a00092].
[Source: February 2010 - Code a00093].

 

·       Where the eaves of an original two-storey rear projection are at a lower level than the eaves of the main rear roof, the requirement to be not less than 20cm from the eaves of the original roof would not prevent an “L”-shaped dormer that extends from the former roof to the latter roof.
[Source: December 2009 - Code a00068].
[Source: February 2010 - Code a00091].
[Source: August 2010 - Code a00130].
[Source: December 2010 - Code a00179].
[Source: January 2011 - Code a00193].
[Source: January 2011 - Code a00194].
[Source: March 2011 - Code a00225].
[Source: April 2011 - Code a00230].
[Source: April 2011 - Code a00231].

 

·       In order for a dormer extension to comply with Class B, part B.2(b), there needs to remain a continuous strip of at least 20cm of original roof slope below the base of the dormer. It is not possible to comply with this condition by saying that the dormer would be set-back 20cm from the notional point where the original eaves would have been when the latter has been removed.
[Note: This contradicts the entry two below].
[Source: November 2009 - Code a00042].
[Source: March 2010 - Code a00105].

 

·       Furthermore, in such a case where a dormer doesn’t comply with Class B, part B.2(b) because the original eaves have been removed, it is not possible to comply with this condition by reintroducing the eaves.
[Source: March 2010 - Code a00105].

 

·       It is possible to comply with Class B, part B.2(b) by saying that the dormer would be set-back 20cm from the notional point where the original eaves would have been when the latter has been removed.
[Note: This contradicts the entry two above].
[Source: February 2011 - Code a00209].

 

·       The assessment of whether a 20cm set-back is “practicable” should focus on structural and practical considerations.
[Source: November 2009 - Code a00037].
[Source: “DCLG - Permitted development for householders - Technical guidance” (August 2010)].

 

·       The fact that the 20cm set-back of a roof extension would result in additional cost is not sufficient in itself to justify that such a set-back would not be “practicable”.
[Source: November 2009 - Code a00037].
[Source: August 2009 - Code a00022].

 

·       The fact that the 20cm set-back of a roof extension would result in additional delay is not sufficient in itself to justify that such a set-back would not be “practicable”.
[Source: August 2009 - Code a00022].

 

·       The desire to have greater floor space in a proposed roof extension is not a sound basis to show that a 20cm set-back is not “practicable”.
[Source: November 2009 - Code a00037].
[Source: January 2010 - Code a00070].

 

·       Where an applicant claims that a 20cm set-back is not practicable, the burden of proof is firmly on the applicant to demonstrate that such a set-back is not practicable, for example by providing structural calculations, rather than for the Council to seek an opinion from its Building Control section.
[Source: November 2009 - Code a00037].

 

·       For a proposed rear dormer, the Inspector concluded that it was insufficient for the applicant to simply show a 20cm set-back from the eaves of the original roof (with an annotation confirming this) without also demonstrating that such a set-back is practicable to construct, for example by considering the size, type, and gauge of the roof tile.
[Note: In my opinion, the above conclusion is questionable, because LPAs do not normally require applicants to submit construction details to demonstrate that what is shown on the submitted plans can actually be built].
[Source: August 2009 - Code a00020].

 

 

B.2(c): 

 

·       See entries under separate heading “A side elevation of the original dwellinghouse”.

·       See entries under separate heading “Obscure-glazed and non-opening”. 

·       See entries under separate heading “Conditions”.

 

 

B.3: 

 

·       No entries.

 



  

Download documents and diagrams of useful

Permitted Development information

permitted development documents download


 

 GPDO Appeal category index