Permitted Development England
How to build a
home extension without Planning Permission using your PD rights - Oct. 1st
2008
|
|||||||||
Certificate of Lawful Development Appeal Decisions by category of development.The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)
Order 1995
Class E development
· Appeal decisions (or parts of appeal decisions) that relate to whether or not an outbuilding accords with the phrase “required for a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse as such” are not summarised in this document. · See entries under separate heading “Interaction between Class A and Class E”.
·
The requirement for a Class E
outbuilding to be for an “incidental” purpose would not cover normal residential uses, such as
separate self-contained accommodation. Therefore such
uses would not be permitted development.
·
The requirement for a Class E
outbuilding to be for an “incidental” purpose would not cover the use of an outbuilding for
primary living accommodation, such as a bedroom, bathroom, or kitchen. Therefore such uses would not be permitted
development.
·
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.
E.1(a):
·
For
the purposes of Class A, part A.1(a) and Class A, part E.1(a), a separate detached structure
(such as a
detached garage) built prior to 1948 is
not part of “the
original dwellinghouse”. As such, a detached garage will
always count as having
used up some of the 50% limit, regardless of when it was built.
E.1(b):
· See entries under separate heading “Principal Elevation”.
·
The phrase “situated on land
forward of a wall forming the principal elevation of the original dwellinghouse” applies not just to
the area directly in front of the wall, but also to the area in front of the imaginary line of the wall when
extended to either side.
E.1(c):
· No entries.
E.1(d):
· See entries under separate heading “Height”. · See entries relating to the phrase “within 2m of the boundary” under separate heading “A.1(g)”.
·
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.
·
Where parts of a proposed
outbuilding are within 2m of a boundary, the 2.5m height limit applies only to those parts within 2m
of the boundary.
·
Where an existing outbuilding is
within 2m of a boundary and has a height greater than 2.5m, then any extension to this outbuilding will
automatically fail Class E, part E.1(d). This is on the
basis that it is the combined structure (rather than just the new extension) that must be assessed
against the height limitation.
·
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.
·
Where the walls of an
outbuilding would not be within 2m of a boundary, but the eaves of the outbuilding would overhang to slightly
within 2m of a boundary, then the 2.5m height restriction of E.1(d) would apply.
·
Where the walls of an
outbuilding would not be within 2m of a boundary, but the eaves of the outbuilding would overhang to slightly
within 2m of a boundary, then the 2.5m height restriction of E.1(d) would not apply.
·
The phrase “dual-pitched roof”
applies not just to a roof with a ridge-line with a pitched roof on either side and gable ends (i.e.
where the roof has 2 slopes), but also in the case where one or both of the ends are hipped ends (i.e.
where the roof has 3 or 4 slopes).
·
The phrase “dual-pitched roof”
does apply to an outbuilding with an “L”-shaped footprint with a dual-pitched roof along each of the
two sides of the “L”, such that is a merging section where these two roofs meet.
·
The phrase “dual-pitched roof”
does not apply to an outbuilding with a “U”-shaped footprint with a dual-pitched roof along each of
the three sides of the “U”, such that is a merging section where each of these three roofs meet, and such
that the inner eaves along the two lengths of the “U” would be joined to form a valley roof along the
middle.
·
The phrase “dual-pitched roof”
does not apply to an outbuilding with a mansard / crown type roof (i.e. either a roof with
shallow pitches in the centre and steeper pitches at the sides, or a roof with a flat area in the centre and
pitches at the sides).
·
The phrase “dual-pitched roof”
does not apply to an outbuilding with a roof that is the equivalent to a mansard / crown type
roof where the central section is sunken down.
·
The phrase “dual-pitched roof”
does apply to an outbuilding with a mansard / crown type roof (i.e. either a roof with shallow
pitches in the centre and steeper pitches at the sides, or a roof with a flat area in the centre and pitches
at the sides).
E.1(e):
· See entries under separate heading “Height”. · See entries under separate heading “Eaves”.
E.1(f):
· No entries.
E.1(g):
· See entries under separate heading “Juliette balconies”.
·
Where a proposed outbuilding
would involve a raised platform with height greater than 300mm, it would not be permitted
development.
E.1(h):
· See entries under separate heading “Class E”.
E.1(i):
· No entries.
E.2:
· An illustration of how to apply this limitation is provided in the “DCLG - Permitted development for householders - Technical guidance” (August 2010).
E.3:
· See entries under separate heading “A side elevation of the original dwellinghouse”.
· An illustration of how to apply this limitation is provided in the “DCLG - Permitted development for householders - Technical guidance” (August 2010). This illustration confirms that for most houses, where the side elevations are parallel to the side boundaries, Class E, part E.3 only prevents outbuildings from being within the area that is directly in between the side wall of the house and the side boundary. In other words, this limitation does not prevent outbuildings from being within the additional area that can be covered if considering the imaginary line of the side wall when extended forwards and rearwards. However, it should be noted that where the side elevations are not parallel to the side boundaries, this still leaves open the question of whether the straight line should be drawn perpendicular to the side wall or perpendicular to the side boundary.
·
Class E, part E.3 only
prevents outbuildings from being within the area that is directly in between the side wall of the
house and the side boundary. In other words, this limitation
does not prevent outbuildings from being within the additional area that can be covered if considering
the imaginary line of the side wall when extended forwards and rearwards.
·
For the purposes of Class E,
part E.3, the phase “a side elevation of the dwellinghouse” includes the side wall of a non-original
extension. As such, Class E, part E.3 would prevent an
outbuilding from being within the area that is directly in between the side wall of such an extension and the
side boundary.
E.4:
· No entries.
Download documents and diagrams of useful Permitted Development information
 Delicious Digg Facebook Magnolia Slashdot Twitter Stumbleupon Yahoo My Web
Your Comments
Click here to add a comment
There are no comments to display
DeliciousDiggFacebookMagnoliaSlashdotTwitterStumbleuponYahoo My Web
| |||||||||
|
©2011 - Christopher
Hunt :: This page last
updated: ::
