My Sitemap

Alphabetical Sitemap
Navigation Menu Sitemap

• How to use this web site
  How to use this web site for Permitted Development householder extensions and ancillary buildings within the curtilage of a dwelling house.
  How-to-use-this-web-site.html
• Commercial permitted development rights
  Commercial permitted development rights examined and expalined.
  Commercial-permitted-development-rights.html

• Commercial permitted development PD explained
  Commercial PD or permitted development explained
  Commercial-permitted-development-PD-explained.html

• Commercial PD part 8
  Commercial PD part 8 class A
  Commercial-PD-part-8.html
• Commercial PD part 32
  Commercial permitted development part 32 explained
  Commercial-PD-part-32.html
• Commercial PD part 41
  Commercial PD Part 41 explained
  Commercial-PD-part-41.html
• Commercial PD part 42
  Commercial PD part 42 explained.
  Commercial-PD-part-42.html

• Home Owner Advice Note
  Current advice note for all home owners intending to erect a building or construct an extension under Permitted Development.
  Home-Owner-Advice-Note.html
• The Ambiguities of the PD Legislation
  The new Permitted Development legislation 2008 is full of ambiguities. Here is our own schedule of the potential mis-understandings that will and have arison with each Local Planning Authority.
  The-Ambiguities-of-the-PD-Legislation.html
• New houses and PD
  New dwelling houses just built often have permitted development rights for additional alterations or extensions. The problem is deciding what is the earliest opportunity a site owner can legally build thier PD extension.
  New-houses-and-PD.html
• Examples of PD photos
  Bad examples of Permitted Development Structures of home extensions and loft conversions. A series of photographs.
  Examples-of-PD-photos.html
• Appeal Decisions
  Certificate of Lawful Development appeal decisions against various Planning Departments who have refused to issue a Certificate of Lawful Development to homeowners.
  Appeal-Decisions.html

• Certificate of Lawful Development Appeal List of Appeal Sites
  Appeal Decisions - Lists of sites for Certificate of Lawful Development.
  Certificate-of-Lawful-Development-Appeal-List-of-Appeal-Sites.html
• Appeal Decision 1
  Apeal Decsion 1 - The application was received by the Council before 01/10/2008, works had not yet begun by that date, and the Council refused the application after 01/10/2008 on the basis that the proposals would not comply with the amended GPDO. The Inspector concluded that the Council was incorrect, and instead should have considered whether the proposals would have been permitted development under the old GPDO. However, the Inspector did then note that a certificate issued in this way would be of no benefit to the applicant because between the application date and the decision date there would have been a material change in the matters determining lawfulness.
  Appeal-Decision-1.html
• Appeal Decision 2
  Appeal Decsion 2 - The application, which was for a single storey rear extension, was received by the Council before 01/10/2008, works had not yet begun by that date, and the Council refused the application on 01/10/2008 on the basis that the proposals would not comply with the amended GPDO. The Inspector concluded that it was correct for the LPA to assess the application on the basis of the amended GPDO, despite the fact that it was received before 01/10/2008. The Inspector stated that “a certificate could not be issued by the Council when they came to determine the application because what determined the lawfulness of the proposed development at the time of the application had materially changed”.
  Appeal-Decision-2.html
• Appeal Decision 3
  Appeal Decision 3 - The application site has an original two-storey rear projection, followed by an original single storey rear projection. The application was to build a single storey extension within the full length of the infill area, wrapping around the end of the original two-storey rear projection to incorporate the original single storey rear projection. The Inspector concluded that the side wall of original rear projection is a “side elevation”, and that therefore under limitation A.2 (b) an extension to the side of an original rear projection within a conservation area is not permitted development. The Inspector also commented on other hypothetical situations.
  Appeal-Decision-3.html
• Appeal Decision 4
  Appeal Decision 4 - The application site has an original two-storey rear projection. Within the infill area, to the side of the original-storey storey rear projection, the application would have left a small courtyard, and then would have erected a single storey extension, which would have projected past the end of the original two-storey rear projection and wrapped around the latter. The Inspector concluded that such an extension would not be permitted development.
  Appeal-Decision-4.html
• Appeal Decision 5
  Appeal Decision 5 - The application, which was for a single storey rear extension, was received by the Council before 01/10/2008, works had not yet begun by that date, and the Council refused the application after 01/10/2008 on the basis that the proposals would not comply with the amended GPDO. The Inspector concluded that it was correct for the LPA to assess the application on the basis of the amended GPDO, despite the fact that it was received before 01/10/2008. In reaching this conclusion, a key factor appears to have been that the proposed extension had not been begun before 01/10/2008. The Inspector quoted section 194(2) of the TCPA 1990, and added the following emphasis: “the lawfulness of any use or operations for which a certificate is in force …shall be conclusively presumed unless there is a material change, before the use is instituted or the operations are begun, in any of the matters relevant to determining such lawfulness”. The Inspector reasoned that a certificate could not be issued by the Council when they came to determine the application because what determined the lawfulness of the proposed development at the time of the application had materially changed.
  Appeal-Decision-5.html
• Appeal Decision 6
  Appeal Decision 6 - The application was for side dormer on a corner property, where both the front elevation and the side elevation face onto a highway. For this particular property, the front elevation contains the front door and the main windows, whilst the flank elevation contains two less important windows. The Inspector concluded that the flank elevation of this particular property is clearly not a “principal” elevation. In reaching this conclusion, the Inspector quoted a letter from the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for CLG, which had reproduced several paragraphs from the “Informal Views from CLG” document (produced December 2008, updated January 2009). The latter document suggests that for most corner properties there will only be one principal elevation, but leaves open the possibility that in exceptional cases a corner property can have more than one principal elevation (such as where there is more than one entrance).
  Appeal-Decision-6.html
• Appeal Decision 7
  Appeal Decision 7 - The application site has an original two storey rear projection, and directly to the rear of this there is a single storey rear extension. The application was to erect a first floor rear extension on top of the latter. The inspector accepted that the roof of the single storey rear extension was part of the of the roof of the house, but rejected the argument that such works could fall under Class B, by stating the following: “However, I take Class B to refer to development that would consist entirely of an addition or alteration to the roof. In this case the development is principally and most obviously an extension to the first floor of the house” The Inspector then considered the works under Class A, stating that they would be contrary to the 3m eaves limitation of part A.1(g). He also stated that the works would be contrary to part A.1(h)(iv) – which excludes enlargement of a dwellinghouse that consists of, or includes an alteration to any part of the roof of a dwellinghouse – as the development would include alterations to parts of the roof.
  Appeal-Decision-7.html
• Appeal Decision 8
  Appeal Decision 8 - The application was received by the Council before 01/10/2008, works had begun by that date, and the Council refused the application after 01/10/2008 on the basis that the proposals would not comply with the amended GPDO. The Inspector concluded that the Council was incorrect, and instead should have considered whether the proposals would have been permitted development under the old GPDO.
  Appeal-Decision-8.html
• Appeal Decision 9
  Appeal Decision 9 - The left-hand side of number 20 is not joined to any other property. The right-hand side of number 20 is fully joined to the left-hand side of number 18. Number 18 and 16 are angled, such that the right-hand side of number 18 is not joined to the left-hand side of number 16 at the front, but these sides are joined at the rear by an original two storey block with a common party wall. The key question was whether number 18 and 20 each constitutes a terrace house (in which case the Class B 40m3 limit applies) or a semi-detached house (in which case the Class B 50m3 limit applies). The Inspector noted the definition at the end of Part 1, which states: ““terrace house” means a dwellinghouse situated in a row of three or more dwellinghouses used or designed for use as single dwellings, where— (a) it shares a party wall with, or has a main wall adjoining the main wall of, the dwellinghouse on either side; or (b) if it is at the end of a row, it shares a party wall with or has a main wall adjoining the main wall of a dwellinghouse which fulfils the requirements of sub-paragraph (a).” The Inspector noted that from the front number 18 and 20 appear to be semi-detached houses, that they were described in the sale as such, and that the main side walls of number 18 and 16 are separate and at an angle. However, he also notes that number 18 and 16 are joined by a two storey block towards the rear part of their sides, that this block is original, and that it is of a size substantial enough to prevent it being regarded as a trivial or insignificant feature. The Inspector concludes that the existence of this block is sufficient for the each of numbers 20, 18, and 16 to be classed as a “terrace house”.
  Appeal-Decision-9.html
• Appeal Decision 10
  Appeal Decision 10 - The property is a detached house. The road “Pound Pill” runs north-south, and the property is situated to the east of this road, with a set-back of approx 30m. The west wall of the property is relatively narrow, and consists of a former garage, now with a window. One of the north walls of the property is relatively narrow and contains a secondary door. The other north wall is relatively wide and contains a secondary door along with 2 patio doors and a window. The main front door is in an inset area between the two north walls. The application was for an outbuilding to the north-east of the house. The Council argued that the north wall is “the principal elevation” and that therefore the proposed outbuilding would be “situated on land forward of a wall forming the principal elevation of the original dwellinghouse” and would not be permitted development. The appellant argued that the west wall was the principal elevation, and that therefore the outbuilding would be permitted development.
  Appeal-Decision-10.html
• Appeal Decision 10A
  Appeal Decision 10A - The application was for a single storey outbuilding, which would have consisted of two bedrooms, two bathrooms, a lounge and a study. The appellant argued that the proposed outbuilding would be a “granny annexe” for ancillary use incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse, with no kitchen, and no separate garden. The Inspector acknowledged that the proposed building would not have a kitchen and that the occupants could eat with the family in the main dwellinghouse. However, he also noted that the simple introduction of small kitchen appliances such as a microwave, fridge and oven would allow the building to be occupied entirely independently. He concluded that the proposed building, with two bedrooms, two bathrooms, study, lounge and hall, would be in excess of what would reasonably be required for a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse, and would not therefore be permitted development under Class E.
  Appeal-Decision-10A.html
• Appeal Decision 11
  Appeal Decision 11 - The property is a two-storey house with an original single storey rear projection. The latter covers only part of the width of the rear of the house, and projects 3m (approx), before narrowing further and then projecting a further 3m (approx). The application was for an extension that would have replaced all of the above with a full-width rear extension, projecting to a point 1.35m further than the rearmost part of the original single storey rear projection. The appellant argued that, in the context of part A.1 (e), ‘rear wall’ means only the rearmost wall of the original single storey rear projection. The Inspector disagreed with the appellant’s argument. He stated that in this case the property has three sections of rear wall, each of which constitutes a ‘rear wall’ for the purposes of part A.1 (e), and that what is relevant is the rear wall on the part of the building that is being extended from. The Inspector pointed out that any other interpretation would be inconsistent with the intention o f part A.1 (e) to restrict the impact which permitted development extensions can have on neighbours by limiting the amount by which extensions can project at the back.
  Appeal-Decision-11.html
• Appeal Decision 12
  Appeal Decision 12 - The property is a two storey semi-detached house, and the application was for a hip-to-gable roof extension with a rear dormer. The Council refused the application with the following reason for refusal: “The flat roof to the proposed dormer would not be constructed of similar materials to that of the existing dwellinghouse. The development would not therefore comply with the conditions as set out in Class B, Part 1, Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1994 (as amended). A planning application will therefore be required” The Inspector stated that, in assessing the “of a similar appearance” condition, there would be a number of factors to be considered in each particular case, including the colour of the material, and its prominence/visibility on the extension. He stated that he could see no reason why a flat roofing material could not be chosen that would have a similar colour to pebbledash, clay tile or brick, but that more importantly, the height of flat roof and its relationship to possible nearby viewpoints would be such that it would be virtually unseen. He concluded that the condition could be met.
  Appeal-Decision-12.html
• Appeal Decision 13
  Appeal Decision 13 - The application, which was for works to the roof including the installation of a balustrade, was received by the Council before 01/10/2008 (on 29/09/2008), it was assumed in the appeal that works had not yet begun by that date, and the Council refused the application after 01/10/2008 on the basis that the proposals would not comply with the amended GPDO. The Council argued that to have granted an LDC for what would effectively have been a 1 day period (which had passed) would not have made sense, and that they had therefore taken a practical approach. The Inspector pointed out that, by strict adherence to procedure, the Council could have issued an LDC stating that, on the date of the application, the works would have been lawful, but then drawn attention to the effect of changes to the General Permitted Development Order 1995, thereby pointing out that if the development had not started before 1 October 2008 then it would not be lawful. However, the Inspector stated that he could understand why the Council adopted their position, and concluded that it was reasonable for the LPA to assess the application on the basis of the amended GPDO, despite the fact that it was received before 01/10/2008.
  Appeal-Decision-13.html
• Appeal Decision 14
  Appeal Decision 14 - The property is a two-storey mid-terrace house. The application was for a single storey rear extension, which would have had a mono-pitch roof, sloping up towards the main house. This would have had height 2.82m along its rear elevation, increasing to height 3.78m where it meets the rear wall of the main house. The Council refused the application on the basis that the height of the eaves of the proposed extension would exceed 3m. The Inspector noted that from a checklist used to assess permitted development, it would appear that the Council measured the height of the eaves as 3.78 metres. The Inspector concluded that the height of the eaves of the proposed extension would not exceed 3m. As there is no definition of “eaves” in the Order, the Inspector took the ordinary dictionary meaning as “the lower overhanging part of a sloping roof”.
  Appeal-Decision-14.html
• Appeal Decision 15
  Appeal Decision 15 - The application was received by the Council before 01/10/2008, works had not yet begun by that date, and the Council refused the application after 01/10/2008 on the basis that the proposals would not comply with the amended GPDO. The Council argued that it would not have been logical to issue a certificate stating that the proposal was ‘permitted development’ if it could no longer be implemented as such. The Inspector concluded that the Council was incorrect. He stated that this is not what the Act says and that the certificate should state what the lawful position was on the date of the application, regardless that such a certificate would not be of any use to the appellant if work commenced after 1 October.
  Appeal-Decision-15.html
• Appeal Decision 16
  Appeal Decision 16 - The property is a two-storey mid-terrace house. Its front elevation is staggered, such that it has three separate main front-facing roof slopes, plus the roof over the front bay window. The application was for various works to the roof, and included the sideways extension of the first and second main front-facing roof slopes. The key issue was whether the proposals would be contrary to Class B, part B.1(b), which states that “development is not permitted by Class B if … any part extends beyond the plane of any existing roof slope which forms the principal elevation of the dwellinghouse and fronts a highway”. The Inspector concluded that all four of the front-facing roof slopes form part of the principal elevation. He concluded that therefore the proposals would “extend a roof slope considerably beyond another existing roof slope in the front elevation”, contrary to Class B, part B.1(b), and would not be permitted development.
  Appeal-Decision-16.html
• Appeal Decision 17
  Appeal Decision 17 - The property is a two-storey mid-terrace house with an original rear projection consisting of a two-storey part and a single-storey part. The application would have constructed an extension within the side infill area, which would have projected 6.6m to the end of the original single-storey rear projection, wrapping around to replace the latter. The key issue was whether the proposals would be contrary to Class A, part A.1(e), which states that “development is not permitted by Class A if … the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would … extend beyond the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse by more than … 3 metres”. The appellant argued that in this case the “rear wall of the original dwellinghouse” is the rearmost wall of the original rear projection. The Inspector disagreed with this argument. He considered that the reference in limitation A.1(e) to “the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse” is to the part of the wall being extended from, and that where there is an original rear projection then there is more than one original rear wall. The proposed extension would therefore not be permitted development.
  Appeal-Decision-17.html
• Appeal Decision 18
  Appeal Decision 18 - The property is a two-storey detached house, on which 2x two-storey side extensions have previously been constructed, and the application was for a single storey rear extension. Part of this extension would have projected from the rear wall of the original house, and part of it would have projected from the rear wall of the side extension. (Note: As the layout of the property is relatively unusual, please refer to the drawings for further information). The Council’s reason for refusal included the following wording: “Notwithstanding that the enlarged part of this detached dwelling would be a single storey enlargement extending beyond the rear wall of the existing dwelling by no more than 4 metres and not exceeding 4 metres in height, the enlarged part of the dwelling would extend in part only beyond the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse. For this reason the proposed development does not fall within the scope of Class A, Part 1 of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No. 2) (England) Order 2008 and planning permission is therefore required.” The Inspector disagreed with the Council. He noted that limitation A.1(e) does not require an extension to be wholly from or, indeed, from the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse at all, only that it cannot extend ‘beyond’ the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse by more than 4m in the case of a detached house. He noted that, in this case, no part of the enlarged dwellinghouse would project more than 4m beyond any part of the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse; nor, indeed, more than 4m beyond the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse to which it is attached – albeit attached in part.
  Appeal-Decision-18.html
• Appeal Decision 19
  Appeal Decision 19 - The property is a two-storey mid-terrace property, with Church Road to the front and Railway Road to the rear, and the application was for a rear dormer. The key issue is whether the proposed rear dormer would be contrary to Class B, part B.1(b), which states that “development is not permitted by Class B if … any part of the dwellinghouse would, as a result of the works, any part extend beyond the plane of any existing roof slope which forms the principal elevation of the dwellinghouse and fronts a highway”. The Council argued that, for this property, both the front roof slope and the rear roof slope constitute a principal elevation. They pointed out that several publications from CLG could support this argument, including the letter that was sent from CLG to Chief Planning Officers in September 2008, which stated that “The order, therefore, simply specifies that a principal elevation fronts a highway” (for more information about these documents, see the Council’s Appeal Statement, paragraphs 10-23). The Inspector disagreed with the above arguments. He stated that the use of the definite article in the phrase “the principal elevation” combined with the plain English definition of the word ‘principal’ must, in his view, mean that there can only be one elevation on a dwellinghouse to which the Class B, B.1(b) exception can apply. He stated that where there is more than one elevation that could be judged to be the ‘principal’ one, the wording of the GPDO requires a decision to be made on the particular facts as to which one it is. He concluded that in this particular case, the principal elevation is the one fronting Church Road.
  Appeal-Decision-19.html
• Appeal Decision 20
  Appeal Decision 20 - The property is a two-storey detached house, with a front and rear roof slope, and gabled sides. The application was for a rear dormer. The submitted drawings indicated that the rear elevation of this dormer would be set-back from the eaves of the main rear roof, and an annotation stated “min. 200mm from eaves to face of dormer”. The key issue was whether the proposals would be contrary to Class B, part B.2(b), which states that “other than in the case of a hip-to-gable enlargement, the edge of the enlargement closest to the eaves of the original roof shall, so far as practicable, be not less than 20 centimetres from the eaves of the original roof”. The Council’s reason for refusal was as follows: “The proposed dormer window would not constitute permitted development under Schedule, Part 1, Class B.2 (b) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No. 2) (England) Order 2008, as it would fall within 20 centimetres of the eaves of the original roof.” The Inspector stated that the key consideration in this case centres upon the gauge of the existing roof tiles and the proposed detail at the junction of the new vertical face of the dormer with the existing roof slope at the eaves. In particular, she would expect such a detail to be based on an exact number of courses of roof tiling below the base of the new vertical face and for it to show some form of flashing from under the new vertical tile hanging dressed over the exiting roof tiling. However, the submitted drawings provide no information as to the size, type and gauge of roof tile, and there are no large scale details to demonstrate what is envisaged. The Inspector concluded that she is unable to properly ascertain whether or not it would be practicable to construct the new dormer ‘at a minimum of 200mm from eaves to face of dormer’ as suggested on the appellant’s drawings. She stated that, as the drawings stand, if they were interpreted literally, the new vertical face could be set 200mm from the eaves and result in an unsatisfactory detail. The Inspector also went on to state that, in any event, when the soffit of the eaves was measured on site it was more than 300mm deep. Therefore, if the proposed vertical face was constructed only 200mm from the extremity of the eaves it would fall outwith the main outside wall of the dwelling. To the Inspector’s mind, this would result in an unsightly building and is not something which is envisaged by the GPDO.
  Appeal-Decision-20.html
• Appeal Decision 21
  Appeal Decision 21 - The property is a two-storey house, and the application was for a ground floor extension and a roof extension. The application was made prior to 1 October 2008, amended plans were submitted after 1 October 2008, and the Council’s decision was based on an assessment of the latter against the amended GPDO. The Inspector disagreed with the above approach, and stated that her decision must be based on an assessment of the plans that were originally submitted against the previous GPDO. The Inspector noted that the application had been submitted for a ground floor extension and a roof extension as one development. She stated that the proposal (as one development) would not fall within Class A because it includes an alteration to a part of the roof of the dwellinghouse (i.e. the roof extension would not fall within Class A), and none of the other Classes are applicable (i.e. presumably on the basis that the ground floor extension would not fall within any of the other Classes) Note: This decision appears highly unusual, because it implies that an application for works to a house can not be split into separate components and assessed against separate Classes. For example, this would imply that an application for “a rear dormer and two front rooflights” would always have to be refused, because “as one development” it would not fall entirely within Class B or entirely within Class C. This would appear to be contrary to many years of standard practice of LPAs and other Inspectors.
  Appeal-Decision-21.html
• Appeal Decision 22
  Appeal Decision 22 - The property is a two-storey mid-terrace house, with an original two-storey rear projection. The application was for an existing roof extension (begun after 1 October 2008) over the original two-storey rear projection. The Inspector noted that the roof extension exceeds the height of the ridge-line of the “original rear section”, and concluded that it is therefore contrary to Class B, part B.1(a), which states that “development is not permitted by Class B if … any part of the dwellinghouse would, as a result of the works, exceed the height of the highest part of the existing roof”. This would appear to suggest that where a property has an original rear projection, a roof extension on top of this rear projection can notbe higher than the ridge-line of the latter (as opposed to the view that it can not be higher than the main ridge-line). However, from a conversation with the Council, it appears that in this case the roof extension did actually exceed the height of the main ridge-line, and therefore it appears that the above suggestion should not be applied. Furthermore, it would appear that there is caselaw (Hammersmith & Fulham L.B. v S.O.S. 30/11/1993) that confirms that the phrase "height of the highest part of the existing roof" refers to the dwelling as a whole (i.e. the main ridge-line) and not the particular part of the roof where works were to be carried out. [Source: DCP Online, section 4.3447]. The Inspector also examined the issue that the roof extension has not been set-back from the eaves of the original roof, noting that Class B, part B.2 (a) states that “the edge of the enlargement closest to the eaves of the original roof shall, so far as practicable, be not less than 20 centimetres from the eaves of the original roof”. The applicant had claimed that in this case this set-back was not practicable, as such an inset could only be achieved by introducing a new structural beam to support the wall, floor and roof of the extension; which would have meant both additional cost and delay before the works could have been carried out. The Inspector disagreed with this argument. He stated that in most situations it will be necessary to introduce one or more structural beams in order to form a roof enlargement with an inset from the eaves of the original roof of not less than 20cm, that the provision of such beams will inevitably involve additional cost, and that there is no evidence before him to demonstrate that in this case those works would have been unacceptably expensive. In addition, the Inspector stated that simply because the scheme might have been a delayed as a result of this set-back is not a sufficient reason to find that the set-back is not practicable.
  Appeal-Decision-22.html
• Appeal Decision 23
  Appeal Decision 23 - The property is a two-storey mid-terrace house with an original two-storey rear projection. Directly to the rear of the latter is a single storey rear extension. The application was for an extension within the side infill area, which would have projected 3m beyond the end of the original two-storey rear projection, wrapping around the rear of the latter to replace the existing single storey rear extension. The key issue was whether the proposals would be contrary to Class A, part A.1(e), which states that “development is not permitted by Class A if … the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would … extend beyond the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse by more than … 3 metres”. The Inspector concluded that in this case the property has two rear walls from which enlargements could be built, and that what is relevant is the rear wall on the part of the building that is being extended from. In her opinion, the GPDO would permit the enlargement of the dwelling from the rear wall of the original two-storey rear projection to a depth of up to 3m, but only for the width of that rear wall. She notes that the GPDO would also permit an extension from the second rear wall within the infill area, but again only to a depth of up to 3m. In reaching this conclusion, the Inspector appears to have given weight to guidance in the “Informal Views from CLG” document (produced December 2008, updated January 2009).
  Appeal-Decision-23.html
• Appeal Decision 24
  Appeal Decision 24 - The property is a two-storey semi-detached house, and the application was for a single storey rear extension. The outer wall of the extension would have projected 3m from the rear wall of the main house. However, the boxed eaves of the extension would have projected a further 100mm, with the roof draining into a gutter attached to the fascia of the boxed eaves. The key issue was whether the projection of the eaves by more than 3m beyond the rear wall of the original house would be contrary to Class A, part A.1(e), which states that “development is not permitted by Class A if … the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would … extend beyond the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse by more than … 3 metres”. The Inspector concluded that the proposals would be permitted development. In reaching this conclusion, he noted that it is common practice for buildings to be measured, for setting out purposes and to assess their ground coverage for instance, between the corners of their outer walls. He noted that as a matter of fact and degree, the proposed eaves projection including the guttering would be minimal, would not add significantly to the size of the extension, and would not result in the extension being any higher than it would be without the projection. He concluded that in this case it is reasonable for the projecting eaves and guttering of the extension to be set aside in calculating its extent.
  Appeal-Decision-24.html
• Appeal Decision 25
  Appeal Decision 25 - The property is a two-storey mid-terrace house, and the application was for a proposed rear dormer. The existing roof of the property has a main ridge-line with a raised parapet wall on either side. The flat roof of the proposed rear dormer would have been at the same height as the main ridge-line, and along the side edges of the flat roof of the dormer there would have been raised parapet walls at the same height as the raised parapet walls on the main roof. The key issue was whether these new parapet walls, which would be at the same height as the existing parapet walls, would “exceed the height of the highest part of the existing roof”. It should be noted that this appeal was assessed against the previous GPDO; however this issue is still directly relevant to B.1(a) of the amended GPDO. The Inspector concluded that “the highest part of the existing roof” is the main ridge-line of the property, as formed by the ridge tiles along the apex at the join of the front and rear roof slopes. He stated that this phrase does not include such raised parapet walls, and does not apply to chimneys.
  Appeal-Decision-25.html
• Appeal Decision 26
  Appeal Decision 26 - The property is a semi-detached property, and the application was for a hip-to-gable roof extension and a rear dormer. Both of these semi-detached properties front Ashgrove Road, and on each property this elevation contains a large ground floor bay window and a first floor window. The application site also fronts Beaumont Road, and this elevation contains the main entrance and garage (on the adjoining semi-detached property the main entrance faces a driveway separating it from another property). The key issue is whether the proposed hip-to-gable extension would be contrary to Class B, part B.1(b), which states that “development is not permitted by Class B if … any part of the dwellinghouse would, as a result of the works, extend beyond the plane of any existing roof slope which forms the principal elevation of the dwellinghouse and fronts a highway”. The Inspector noted that both the Council and the appellant agreed that there can only be one “principal” elevation, and he did not dispute this statement. The Council argued that, for this property, the elevation fronting Beaumont Road constitutes the principal elevation, and justified this decision on the basis of the “Informal Views from CLG” document (December 2008), which states that “in the vast majority of cases it would be perfectly clear what the principal elevation was i.e. the part of the house that fronts the highway and which usually contains the main entrance”. The Inspector disagreed with this argument. He stated that the two windows fronting Ashgrove Road are what would normally be expected to be found on a front elevation. He stated that, in his mind, a nyperson viewing the property would conclude that the entrance was to ‘the side or flank’ of the house, and the elevation fronting Ashgrove Road was the front and main elevation of the house and pair of semi-detached dwellings. As a separate issue, the Inspector noted that Class B contains conditions B.1(a) [materials], B.1(b) [set-back from eaves], and B.1(c) [side windows obscure glazed and non-opening]. He stated that a certificate of lawful development can not be issued subject to conditions, and dismissed the appeal on the basis that the submitted drawing did not show the side window to be obscure glazed and non-opening.
  Appeal-Decision-26.html
• Appeal Decision 27
  Appeal Decision 27 - The property is a three-storey mid-terrace house, and the application was for a basement extension under the full width and length of the rear garden. The roof of the basement would have been at ground level (not projecting above the latter), such that brick paving directly on top of this roof would have formed the new surface of the rear garden. The Inspector noted that Class A (which permits “The enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse”) does not specifically mention basements, but stated that this does not in itself imply that basements are not permitted development. He stated that, in his view, basements do fall within the scope of Class A, and are therefore permitted development only if they do not infringe any of the limitations of the Class. The Inspector then looked specifically at part A.1(e), which states that “development is not permitted by Class A if … the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would … extend beyond the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse by more than … 3 metres”. The Inspector concluded that this 3m projection limit does apply to basements and that therefore the proposed basement, which would project further than this, would not be permitted development.
  Appeal-Decision-27.html
• Appeal Decision 28
  Appeal Decision 28 - The property is a two-storey end-of-terrace property, and the application was for a hip-to-gable roof extension and a rear dormer. The four houses making up the terrace stand at a 45 degree angle to Alnwick Road to the south and Paston Crescent to the east. The key issue is whether the proposed hip-to-gable extension would be contrary to Class B, part B.1(b), which states that “development is not permitted by Class B if … any part of the dwellinghouse would, as a result of the works, extend beyond the plane of any existing roof slope which forms the principal elevation of the dwellinghouse and fronts a highway”. The Council argued that, for this property, both the front roof slope and the side roof slope constitute a principal elevation. The Inspector acknowledged the “Informal Views from CLG” document (December 2008), which states that “in the vast majority of cases” the principal elevation will be “the part of the house that fronts the highway and which usually contains the main entrance”, but that in a minority of cases there will have to be an assessment of “what constitutes the principal elevation”. The Inspector concluded that the word “elevation” is singular, and that there can only be one principal elevation. He noted that,, in this particular case, although the side elevation has a larger surface area than the front elevation, the former is a largely blank expanse of wall, apart from one small window, whilst the latter contains a projecting gable to roof level, the main windows, and the main entrance within the projecting porch. He therefore concluded that, in this particular case, the front elevation is the “principal” elevation, and allowed the appeal.
  Appeal-Decision-28.html
• Appeal Decision 29
  Apeal Decision 29 -The property is a detached house. The application was for a proposed outbuilding, which would have used as a bedroom. The proposed outbuilding would have been sited on a raised platform, which appears from the drawings to have height 0.4m.
  Appeal-Decision-29.html
• Appeal Decision 30
  Apeal Decision 30 - The property is a single storey semi-detached house. The section of Frome Park Road nearest to the property runs from north-west to south-east, and the property is to the south-west side of this road with its front elevation facing north. As such, both the front elevation and the side elevation of the property are at an approx 45 degree angle to Frome Park Road. The application was for a proposed single storey side extension.
  Appeal-Decision-30.html
• Appeal Decision 31
  Apeal Decision 31 - The property is a semi-detached house. The application was for an existing outbuilding, which is located towards the end of the rear garden, at a distance of 0.5m from the side boundaries, and with a maximum height of 4m.
  Appeal-Decision-31.html
• Appeal Decision 32
  Apeal Decision 32 - The property is a two-storey detached house. Ditton Park Road runs south-west to north-east, and the property is to the south-west side of the road. The property is aligned with the road, such that its elevations face north-west, north-east, south-east, and south-west. To the south-west of the property is the garden, and to the south-east is a gravelled turning and parking area enclosed on two sides by garages and outbuildings, followed by an area of mature woodland (outside the application site) then Riding Court Road which runs alongside the M4
  Appeal-Decision-32.html
• Appeal Decision 33
  Apeal Decision 33 - The property is a two-storey semi-detached property, with rear and side elevations that are flat (i.e. not stepped). The application was for a proposed extension that would have projected from the rear elevation, and then wrapped-around the corner to project from the side elevation. Most of the proposed extension would have been single-storey, except for a part of the extension directly to the rear of the property which would have been two-storey.
  Appeal-Decision-33.html
• Appeal Decision 34
  Apeal Decision 34 - The application was received by the Council prior to 01/10/2008, works had not yet begun by that date, and the Council refused the application after 01/10/2008 on the basis that the proposals would not comply with the amended GPDO.
  Appeal-Decision-34.html
• Appeal Decision 35
  Apeal Decision 35 - The property is a single-storey detached house. Although the property is “U”-shaped, it is the front elevation that contains the indented part (i.e. the top of the “U”), so that the rear and side elevations of the property are flat (i.e. not stepped). The application was for a proposed extension that would have projected 4m from the rear elevation, and then wrapped-around the corner to project 7.1m (less than half the width of the house) from the side elevation.
  Appeal-Decision-35.html
• Appeal Decision 36
  Apeal Decision 36 - The property is a two-storey semi-detached house, and the application was for a proposed rear dormer and front rooflights. The key issue was whether the proposed rear dormer would be contrary to Class B, part B.2(a), which requires that “the materials used in any exterior work shall be of a similar appearance to those used in the construction of the exterior of the existing dwellinghouse”.
  Appeal-Decision-36.html
• Appeal Decision 37
  Apeal Decision 37 - The property is a two-storey semi-detached house, with an original two-storey rear projection. The application was for a proposed side dormer on the side roof of the original two-storey rear projection. The submitted plans showed that the proposed side dormer would be built straight up on top of the main side wall of the original two-storey rear projection, without a 20cm set-back from the original eaves.
  Appeal-Decision-37.html
• Appeal Decision 38
  Apeal Decision 38 - 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.
  Appeal-Decision-38.html
• Appeal Decision 39
  Apeal Decision 39 - The property is a detached bungalow. It has a pitched roof with the ridge running parallel to the front and rear elevations with hipped ends to the sides. To the front, bedroom one projects forward of the front main wall of the dwelling and this is topped with a lower pitched roof with a hipped end to the front and a ridge running back to join the main roof. The development proposed is to extend the ridge of the main roof to both sides and in so doing increase the slope of the side facing hipped ends. A dormer would be inserted in the enlarged rear roof slope. To the front, the roof over bedroom one would be raised in height so that the angles of the roof would correspond to those on the main roof.
  Appeal-Decision-39.html
• Appeal Decision 40
  Apeal Decision 40 - The property is a two-storey detached house. Chertsey Road runs west to east, and the property is to the north side of this road, set back a significant distance from the road. The property is orientated such that its four elevations face north, south, west, and east. The application was for a proposed two-storey extension (with a footprint significantly larger than the house) to the east elevation, and a single storey extension (with depth 6m) to the north elevation.
  Appeal-Decision-40.html
• Appeal Decision 41
  Apeal Decision 41 - The property is a detached house, and the application was for an existing outbuilding (garage, gymnasium, snooker play area) at the end of the rear garden. The submitted application form stated that the building works were substantially completed on “10/11/2007”, and that a certificate was sought “under permitted development”.
  Appeal-Decision-41.html
• Appeal Decision 42
  Apeal Decision 42 - The property is a two-storey end-of-terrace house, with an original single storey rear projection, on top of which a first floor rear extension (with a flat roof) has subsequently been added. The application was for a proposed rear dormer with a door leading to a roof terrace on top of the existing first floor rear extension, and two outbuildings in the rear garden. One of the differences between the two applications (and two appeals) was that the two outbuildings were described as a “home office” and “orangery” in Appeal A, but an “outbuilding” (i.e. for an unspecified purpose) and “orangery” in Appeal B.
  Appeal-Decision-42.html
• Appeal Decision 43
  Apeal Decision 43 - The application was received by the Council prior to 01/10/2008, works had not yet begun by that date, and the Council refused the application after 01/10/2008 on the basis that the proposals would not comply with the amended GPDO. The Council argued that it would not have been logical to issue a certificate stating that the proposal was “permitted development” if it could no longer be implemented as such.
  Appeal-Decision-43.html
• Appeal Decision 44
  Apeal Decision 44 - The property is a detached house in very large grounds. Parsonage Lane runs from south-west to north-east, and the property is set-back from the road on the north-west side. The layout and the design of the property have been significantly altered since it was originally built in 1974, including the extension of its footprint, the increase in its height from one to two storeys, and alterations to its door and window openings. The application was for a large outbuilding, which would have been located to the south-west of the main building, such that it would have been behind the line of the wall of the south-east elevation of the property when extended to either side. The submitted plans showed that it would be used as a garage and implement store.
  Appeal-Decision-44.html
• Appeal Decision 45
  Apeal Decision 45 - The application was received by the Council prior to 01/10/2008, works had not yet begun by that date, and the Council refused the application after 01/10/2008 on the basis that the proposals would not comply with the amended GPDO.
  Appeal-Decision-45.html
• Appeal Decision 46
  Apeal Decision 46 - The property is a detached house, and the application was for two proposed outbuildings, one of which would be a garage and the other a garden studio. The latter would have been positioned 2.0m from the boundary, and would have had a flat roof at height 2.75m. The key issue was whether the height of the proposed garden studio would be contrary to Class E, part E.1(e), which states that “Development is not permitted by Class E if … the height of the eaves of the building would exceed 2.5 metres”.
  Appeal-Decision-46.html
• Appeal Decision 47
  Apeal Decision 47 - The property is a detached house, and the application included a two-storey rear extension with a Juliette balcony at first floor level. The first key issue was whether the proposed Juliette balcony would be contrary to Class A, part A.1(i), which states that “Development is not permitted by Class A if … (i) it would consist of or include … (i) the construction or provision of a veranda, balcony or raised platform …”
  Appeal-Decision-47.html
• Appeal Decision 48
  Apeal Decision 48 - The property is a terraced house, and the application was for a proposed rear dormer. The key issue was whether the flat roof of the dormer would be contrary to Class B, part B.2(a), which requires that “the materials used in any exterior work shall be of a similar appearance to those used in the construction of the exterior of the existing dwellinghouse”.
  Appeal-Decision-48.html
• Appeal Decision 49
  Apeal Decision 49 - The application was received by the Council prior to 01/10/2008, works had not yet begun by that date, and the Council refused the application after 01/10/2008 on the basis that the proposals would not comply with the amended GPDO. The Inspector concluded that the Council was incorrect, and stated the following:
  Appeal-Decision-49.html
• Appeal Decision 50
  Apeal Decision 50 - The property is a two-storey semi-detached house with an original two-storey rear projection. The application was for a single storey extension to the side and to the rear of the original two-storey rear projection. It should be noted that the property has an existing outbuilding close to the end of the original two-storey rear projection, but the proposals would not affect this, other than the proposed extension adjoining.
  Appeal-Decision-50.html
• Appeal Decision 51
  Apeal Decision 51 - The property is a two-storey mid-terrace house, and the application was for a proposed rear dormer. The key issue was whether the flat roof of the dormer would be contrary to Class B, part B.2(a), which requires that “the materials used in any exterior work shall be of a similar appearance to those used in the construction of the exterior of the existing dwellinghouse”.
  Appeal-Decision-51.html
• Appeal Decision 52
  Apeal Decision 52 - The property is a two-storey mid-terrace house, and the application was for a proposed rear dormer. The key issue was whether the flat roof of the dormer would be contrary to Class B, part B.2(a), which requires that “the materials used in any exterior work shall be of a similar appearance to those used in the construction of the exterior of the existing dwellinghouse”. The Council refused the application on the basis that the use of lead for the flat roof of the proposed rear dormer would not comply with this condition. The Inspector stated the following:
  Appeal-Decision-52.html
• Appeal Decision 53
  Apeal Decision 53 - The application was for a proposed hip-to-gable roof extension, and the erection of a rear dormer. The submitted information indicated that a soil and vent pipe would be attached to the outside of the proposed rear dormer, to a height of 0.9m above the roof of the latter. The key issue was whether the proposed dormer with an attached soil and vent pipe would be contrary to Class B, part B.1(d), which states that “Development is not permitted by Class B if … it would consist of or include … (ii) the installation, alteration or replacement of a chimney, flue or soil and vent pipe”.
  Appeal-Decision-53.html
• Appeal Decision 54
  Apeal Decision 54 - The property is a two-storey semi-detached house, within a conservation area. The property has an original two-storey rear projection, followed by a narrower (by 1m) original single storey rear projection. The application would have extended the original single storey rear projection sideways by 1m, to increase its width to match that of the original two-storey rear projection.
  Appeal-Decision-54.html
• Appeal Decision 55
  Apeal Decision 55 - The property is a detached house, within a conservation area. The application was for a proposed outbuilding. The key issue was whether the proposed outbuilding would be contrary to Class E, part E.3, which states that “In the case of any land within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse which is article 1(5) land, development is not permitted by Class E if any part of the building … would be situated on land between a wall forming a side elevation of the dwellinghouse and the boundary of the curtilage of the dwellinghouse”.
  Appeal-Decision-55.html
• Appeal Decision 56
  Apeal Decision 56 - The property is a three-storey end-of-terrace house, with an original two-storey rear projection, followed by an original single storey rear projection. The application was for a proposed single storey extension. The side infill part of the proposed extension would have left a courtyard and then projected to the end of the original single storey rear extension. The rear part of the proposed extension would have projected 3m to the rear of the original single storey rear extension, whilst also replacing the latter. The side elevation of the side infill part of the proposed extension would have been clad in timber panels and an aluminium panel.
  Appeal-Decision-56.html
• Appeal Decision 57
  Apeal Decision 57 - The property is a two-storey semi-detached house, within a conservation area. The property has an original two-storey rear projection. The application was for a proposed extension within the side infill area, which would have projected 3m beyond the end of the original two-storey rear projection, wrapping around the rear of the latter to replace the existing single storey rear extension.
  Appeal-Decision-57.html
• Appeal Decision 58
  Apeal Decision 58 - The property is a two-storey detached house. The application included a proposed two-storey rear extension, the ground floor of which would have had depth 4m, and the first floor of which would have had depth 3m. The first key issue was whether the proposed rear extension would be contrary to Class A, part A.1(f), which states that “Development is not permitted by Class A if … the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would have more than one storey and … (i) extend beyond the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse by more than 3 metres”.
  Appeal-Decision-58.html
• Appeal Decision 59
  Apeal Decision 59 - The property is a detached house, and the application included a proposed single storey side extension (to the south-east elevation). The key issue was whether the proposed side extension would be contrary to Class A, part A.1(d), which states that “Development is not permitted by Class A if … the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would extend beyond a wall which— (i) fronts a highway, and (ii) forms either the principal elevation or a side elevation of the original Dwellinghouse”.
  Appeal-Decision-59.html
• Appeal Decision 60
  Apeal Decision 60 - The property is a two-storey semi-detached house with a hipped roof. The application was for a proposed hip-to-gable roof extension and the erection of a rear dormer. The key issue was whether the use of felt for the flat roof of the proposed rear dormer would be contrary to Class B, part B.2(a), which requires that “the materials used in any exterior work shall be of a similar appearance to those used in the construction of the exterior of the existing dwellinghouse”.
  Appeal-Decision-60.html
• Appeal Decision 61
  Apeal Decision 61 - The property is a two-storey semi-detached house, with a hipped roof. The application was for a proposed hip-to-gable roof extension and the erection of a rear roof dormer. The key issue was whether the use of felt for the flat roof of the proposed rear dormer would be contrary to Class B, part B.2(a), which requires that “the materials used in any exterior work shall be of a similar appearance to those used in the construction of the exterior of the existing dwellinghouse”.
  Appeal-Decision-61.html
• Appeal Decision 62
  Apeal Decision 62 - The property is a two-storey end-of-terrace house, with a “conventional” layout such that the rear and side elevations of the property are flat (i.e. not stepped). The application was for a proposed extension that would have projected 3m from the rear elevation, and then wrapped-around the corner to project 2.45m (less than half the width of the house) from the side elevation. The rear extension would have included a two-storey element, which would have been set back not less than 2.45 m from the nearest curtilage boundary.
  Appeal-Decision-62.html
• Appeal Decision 63
  Apeal Decision 63 - The property is a two-storey semi-detached house, and the application included a proposed rear dormer. The key issue was whether the use of felt for the flat roof of the proposed rear dormer would be contrary to Class B, part B.2(a), which requires that “the materials used in any exterior work shall be of a similar appearance to those used in the construction of the exterior of the existing dwellinghouse”.
  Appeal-Decision-63.html
• Appeal Decision 64
  Apeal Decision 64 - The property is a two-storey mid-terrace house. The application was for a proposed single storey rear extension, which would have had a mono-pitch roof, sloping up towards the main house. This would have had height 2.4m along its rear elevation, increasing to height 3.8m where it meets the rear wall of the main house.
  Appeal-Decision-64.html
• Appeal Decision 65
  Apeal Decision 65 - The property is a detached house, to the north of which is the river Thames, and to the south of which is a vehicular access followed by Windsor Road. The application was for a proposed outbuilding, which would have been located to the west of the property, such that the southern part of the outbuilding would have been slightly further south than the south elevation of the property.
  Appeal-Decision-65.html
• Appeal Decision 66
  Apeal Decision 66 - The property is a mid-terrace house, and the application was for a proposed rear dormer. The key issue was whether the flat roof of the dormer would be contrary to Class B, part B.2(a), which requires that “the materials used in any exterior work shall be of a similar appearance to those used in the construction of the exterior of the existing dwellinghouse”.
  Appeal-Decision-66.html
• Appeal Decision 67
  Apeal Decision 67 - The property is a two-storey mid-terrace house. The application was for a proposed rear dormer, which would have involved the alteration of an existing soil and vent pipe. The first key issue was whether the alteration of the soil and vent pipe would be contrary to Class B, part B.1(d), which states that “Development is not permitted by Class B if … it would consist of or include … (ii) the installation, alteration or replacement of a chimney, flue or soil and vent pipe”.
  Appeal-Decision-67.html
• Appeal Decision 68
  Apeal Decision 68 - The property is a two-storey mid-terrace house with an original two-storey rear projection. The application was for a proposed “L”-shaped dormer, which would have been across both the rear roof of the main part of the house as well as the side roof of the original two-storey rear projection. Although no part of the proposed dormer would have exceeded the height of the main ridge-line of the house, the part of the dormer on the side roof of the original two-storey rear projection would have exceeded the height of the ridge-line of the latter structure.
  Appeal-Decision-68.html
• Appeal Decision 69
  Apeal Decision 69 - The property is a detached bungalow to the south side of Chelmsford Road. Its north elevation is stepped, such that the north-facing wall towards the west side is approx 5.5m behind the north-facing wall towards the east side. In other words, the property is equivalent to a square shape with the north-west corner cut out. The application was for a proposed single storey “side” extension, which would have squared off this missing corner, extending the rearward north-facing wall forward to the line of the forward north-facing wall.
  Appeal-Decision-69.html
• Appeal Decision 70
  Apeal Decision 70 - The property is a two-storey semi-detached house. The main part of the roof is a typical dual pitch from front-to-back with a gable side; however the rear-facing roof then merges into a side-facing roof of the equivalent of a full-width two-storey rear projection. The application was for a proposed mansard that would not only have covered the entire rear-facing roof, but also would have projected rearward onto part of the side-facing roof. As such, the rear elevation of the proposed mansard would have been further rearward than the main rear eaves (which would then cease to exist), rather than set-back 20cm from the latter. As this situation is difficult to describe, please refer to the submitted plans.
  Appeal-Decision-70.html
• Appeal Decision 71
  Apeal Decision 71 - The property is a detached bungalow to the north-east side of Herlwyn Avenue. Its south-west elevation, which is accepted in the appeal as the principal elevation, is staggered, and both this elevation and the proposed extension are described by the Inspector as follows:
  Appeal-Decision-71.html
• Appeal Decision 72
  Apeal Decision 72 - The property is an end-of-terrace house. The application, which was made after 01/10/2008 (on 18/03/2009), was for an existing single storey rear conservatory, which was built before 01/10/2008. The Council said that because the application was received after 01/10/2008 it was assessed in accordance with the Order as amended on 01/10/2008. On that basis, if the amended limitations were applied, the appeal conservatory would not have been permitted development because it projects more than 3m from the rear wall of the original house.
  Appeal-Decision-72.html
• Appeal Decision 73
  Apeal Decision 73 - The property is a detached bungalow, and the application was for a proposed single storey rear extension. The proposed extension would have had a flat roof with parapet walls at height 3.3m-3.9m (variation due to the sloping ground level), and these parapet walls would have been higher than the eaves of the bungalow. The key issue was whether the proposed extension would be contrary to Class A, part A.1(c), which states that “Development is not permitted by Class A if … the height of the eaves of the part of the dwellinghouse enlarged, improved or altered would exceed the height of the eaves of the existing dwellinghouse”
  Appeal-Decision-73.html
• Appeal Decision 74
  Apeal Decision 74 - The property is a semi-detached house, and the application was for a proposed hip-to-gable roof extension and a rear dormer. The new gable end would have included a side window at second floor level, and on the submitted drawings this window was annotated as “new windows to match existing”. The key issue was whether the proposed new side window would be contrary to Class B, part B.2(c), which states the following:
  Appeal-Decision-74.html
• Appeal Decision 75
  Apeal Decision 75 - The application, which was made after 01/10/2008 (on 09/04/2009), was for an existing single storey rear conservatory, which was built in 2003. The Council said the existing single storey rear extension was unlawful because it did not comply with the requirements of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No. 2) (England) Order 2008, (GPDO), which came into force on 1 October 2008. This was on the basis that the extension projects more than 3m from the rear wall of the original house.
  Appeal-Decision-75.html
• Appeal Decision 76
  Apeal Decision 76 - The property is a two-storey mid-terrace house, with an original two-storey rear projection. The application was for a proposed dormer on the side roof slope of the original two-storey rear projection, and would have involved the raising of the party wall of the latter structure, which is shared with the adjoining number 79 Platts Lane. The key issue was whether the raising of the party wall would constitute “Development within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse”, and therefore whether the proposals would fall under the scope of Part 1 of the GPDO.
  Appeal-Decision-76.html
• Appeal Decision 77
  Apeal Decision 77 - The property is a two-storey semi-detached house with a hipped roof. The application was for a proposed hip-to-gable roof extension, a rear dormer, and three front rooflights. The new gabled end would have included a side window, which was not annotated on the submitted drawings as obscure glazed.
  Appeal-Decision-77.html
• Appeal Decision 78
  Apeal Decision 78 - The property is a detached bungalow, with its front elevation facing south-west. It has a very large existing side extension which first projects south-east from the side wall of the original bungalow, then turns north-east towards the rear garden, and then turns south-east again. For a drawing of this property on which the original building is clearly marked please refer to Appendix A of the Council’s Appeal Statement.
  Appeal-Decision-78.html
• Appeal Decision 79
  Apeal Decision 79 - The property is a two-storey semi-detached house, with an existing two-storey rear extension and single storey side extension. The application was for a proposed rear dormer, two front rooflights, first floor side window, and an alteration to a soil and vent pipe. The key issue was whether the use of felt for the flat roof of the proposed rear dormer would be contrary to Class B, part B.2(a), which requires that “the materials used in any exterior work shall be of a similar appearance to those used in the construction of the exterior of the existing dwellinghouse”.
  Appeal-Decision-79.html
• Appeal Decision 80
  Apeal Decision 80 - The application was received by the Council prior to 01/10/2008, works had not yet begun by that date, and the Council refused the application after 01/10/2008 on the basis that the proposals would not comply with the amended GPDO. The Inspector concluded that the Council was incorrect, and stated the following:
  Appeal-Decision-80.html
• Appeal Decision 81
  Apeal Decision 81 - 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.
  Appeal-Decision-81.html
• Appeal Decision 82
  Apeal Decision 82 - The application, which was made after 01/10/2008 (on 12/02/2009) was for an existing conservatory and green house, which were built in 2007. The Inspector stated the following: “Although the application for the LDC was made after the coming into effect of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No. 2) (England) Order 2008 on 1 October 2008, the permitted development rights against which the development must be considered are derived from the GPDO in force at the date of start of works, R J Williams Le Roi v SSE & Salisbury DC [1993] JPL 1033. So the Council were right to apply the 1995 Order to the application.”
  Appeal-Decision-82.html
• Appeal Decision 83
  Apeal Decision 83 - The property is a two-storey terrace house. From the appeal decision notice, and from an aerial photo, it appears that the property originally had a small single storey rear projection, which has subsequently been replaced by a full-width single storey rear extension. The application was for the proposed replacement of this existing full-width single storey rear extension with a new full-width single storey rear projection.
  Appeal-Decision-83.html
• Appeal Decision 84
  Apeal Decision 84 - The property is a semi-detached house within a conservation area, and has an original two-storey rear projection. The application was for a proposed single storey extension to the side of the original two-storey rear projection. The key issue was whether the proposed extension would be contrary to Class A, part A.2(b), which states that “In the case of a dwellinghouse on article 1(5) land, development is not permitted by Class A if … the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse”.
  Appeal-Decision-84.html
• Appeal Decision 85
  Apeal Decision 85 - The property is a semi-detached house. It is situated on the inside of a bend of Cottingham Grove, such that the road runs parallel to the front elevation of the house, but at an angle to the side elevation. For an OS Map, please refer to the Appellant’s Appeal Statement. The application was for a proposed single storey side extension and a proposed single storey rear extension.
  Appeal-Decision-85.html
• Appeal Decision 86
  Apeal Decision 86 - The application, which was made after 01/10/2008 (in 2009) was for an existing single storey rear extension, which was begun before 01/10/2008. The Inspector stated the following: “This appeal concerns the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (the "GPDO"). Amendments to the GPDO came into effect in October 2008, but the disputed development was evidently begun before then, so the pre-October 2008 GPDO applies. The building work may not have been completed until after the beginning of October 2008 but that does not matter - it is the start date which is important in deciding which legislation applies”.
  Appeal-Decision-86.html
• Appeal Decision 87
  Apeal Decision 87 - 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.
  Appeal-Decision-87.html
• Appeal Decision 88
  Apeal Decision 88 - The property is a large detached house, set away from all boundaries. The application was for a proposed extension, the single storey part of which would have covered the whole of the side elevation, and then continued to a point 4m beyond the line of the original rear wall. The extension would have then wrapped-around the corner to project from the rear elevation, although the part directly to the rear of the main house would have had two storeys both at a reduced projection of 3m from the original rear wall.
  Appeal-Decision-88.html
• Appeal Decision 89
  Apeal Decision 89 - Numbers 31 and 33 are a pair of semi-detached house that were converted from a single building to the west of Church Lane (which runs north-south). The building was converted with a north-south divide, with number 33 (the application site) on the west side, meaning that the application site has a north, west, and south elevation, but no east elevation (the latter is the party wall with number 31). The application was for a two-storey extension to the west elevation.
  Appeal-Decision-89.html
• Appeal Decision 90
  Apeal Decision 90 - The application, which was made after 01/10/2008 (on 07/05/2009) was for an existing outbuilding. The main focus of this appeal decision was whether work began before 01/10/2010. The Inspector considered the evidence, and concluded that on the balance of probabilities it had. The paragraph of this appeal decision that is more generally applicable is the following:
  Appeal-Decision-90.html
• Appeal Decision 91
  Apeal Decision 91 - The property is a two-storey mid-terrace house with an original two-storey rear projection. The application was for a proposed “L”-shaped dormer, which would have been across both the rear roof of the main part of the house as well as the side roof of the original two-storey rear projection. Although no part of the proposed dormer would have exceeded the height of the main ridge-line of the house, the part of the dormer on the side roof of the original two-storey rear projection would have exceeded (by 2.3m) the height of the ridge-line of the latter structure.
  Appeal-Decision-91.html
• Appeal Decision 92
  Apeal Decision 92 - The property is a two-storey semi-detached house, with a hipped roof. An unlawful side dormer has previously been erected, and the corner of the flat roof of the dormer projects beyond the front elevation. The application was for a proposed alterations to this dormer, including narrowing its width, reducing its height, and replacing its flat roof with a hipped roof. The appeal decision notice for this case is very lengthy, and only parts of it have been summarised below.
  Appeal-Decision-92.html
• Appeal Decision 93
  Apeal Decision 93 - The property is a semi-detached house, with a hipped roof. The application was for a proposed hip-to-gable roof extension and a full-width rear dormer. The key issue was whether the proposed mansard would be contrary to Class B, part B.2(b), which states that “Development is permitted by Class B subject to the following conditions … (b) other than in the case of a hip-to-gable enlargement, the edge of the enlargement closest to the eaves of the original roof shall, so far as practicable, be not less than 20 centimetres from the eaves of the original roof”.
  Appeal-Decision-93.html
• Appeal Decision 94
  Apeal Decision 94 - The property is a two-storey end of terrace house, which does not front any highway (due to other intervening buildings). Its north-east elevation is a party wall with the adjoining number 44, and its north-west elevation contains an original single storey projection. The application was to erect a first floor extension on top of the latter structure, with a roof that would have joined onto the roof of the main house, with matching ridge-line.
  Appeal-Decision-94.html
• Appeal Decision 95
  Apeal Decision 95 - The property is a two-storey end-of-terrace house, and the application was for existing works. In 2004, planning permission was granted by the Council for works including a first floor side extension, with a hipped roof, and a rear dormer. These works have been constructed along with a hip-to-gable extension over the first floor side extension, and an enlargement to the rear dormer (which now approaches the edge of the gable end).
  Appeal-Decision-95.html
• Appeal Decision 96
  Apeal Decision 96 - The property is a two-storey semi-detached house. Its front elevation is staggered, with a two-storey square bay window that projects forward of the remaining section containing the front door. The bay window section has width 3.4m and is on the side of the front elevation nearest the adjoining number 43, whilst the front door section has width 1.9m and is on the side of the front elevation nearest the main side wall. The application was for a side extension that would have projected forward to the line of the bay window section, thereby projecting past the line of the adjoining front door section.
  Appeal-Decision-96.html
• Appeal Decision 97
  Apeal Decision 97 - The property is a two-storey mid-terrace house, with an original single storey rear projection. The width of the latter structure is just under half of the width of the property. The application was for a proposed single storey rear extension, which would have replaced the original single storey rear projection and covered the full width of the property.
  Appeal-Decision-97.html
• Appeal Decision 98
  Apeal Decision 98 - The property is a two-storey semi-detached house, with an original single storey rear projection. The application was for a proposed first floor rear extension on top of the latter structure. The first key issue was whether the proposed extension would fall under the scope of Class B (“The enlargement of a dwellinghouse consisting of an addition or alteration to its roof”).
  Appeal-Decision-98.html
• Appeal Decision 99
  The property is a house and the application related to an enforcement notice against the installation of a hard surface The first key issue was whether the hard surface is contrary to Class F, part F.1, which states the following
  Appeal-Decision-99.html
• Appeal Decision 100
  The property is a two-storey mid-terrace house, and the application was for a proposed single storey rear extension. The outer wall of the extension would have projected 3m from the rear wall of the main house. However, the eaves and guttering would have then projected a further 0.35m. Furthermore, the applicant had not specified what materials would be used for the extension.
  Appeal-Decision-100.html
• Appeal Decision 101
  The property is a detached house, with Hasle Road to the west and Beech Drive to the east. The application was for a proposed full-width dormer on an elevation facing towards Hasle Road. The first key issue was whether the proposed dormer would be contrary to Class B, part B.1(b), which states that “development is not permitted by Class B if … any part of the dwellinghouse would, as a result of the works, extend beyond the plane of any existing roof slope which forms the principal elevation of the dwellinghouse and fronts a highway”.
  Appeal-Decision-101.html
• Appeal Decision 102
  The property is a two-storey mid-terrace house, with a small original two-storey rear projection (depth only 1.2m). The application was for a proposed single storey rear extension across the full width of the site, which would have projected 3m from the main rear wall of the house and 1.8m from the original two-storey rear projection. The key issue was whether the proposed extension would be contrary to Class A, part A.1(h), which states that “Development is not permitted by Class A if … the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse, and would— … (iii) have a width greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse”.
  Appeal-Decision-102.html
• Appeal Decision 103
  The property is a two-storey mid-terrace house with an original two-storey rear projection. The application was for a proposed “L”-shaped dormer, which would have been across both the rear roof of the main part of the house as well as the side roof of the original two-storey rear projection. The height of the latter part of the extension would have exceeded (by a significant amount) the height of the ridge-line of the original two-storey rear projection. The key issue was whether the proposals would be contrary to Class B, part B.1(a), which states that “Development is not permitted by Class B if … any part of the dwellinghouse would, as a result of the works, exceed the height of the highest part of the existing roof”.
  Appeal-Decision-103.html
• Appeal Decision 104
  The property is a single storey detached house. The application was for two proposed side extensions (one on each side) and a proposed rear extension, all of which would be separate structures. One of the proposed side extensions would have had width 3.8m, exactly half the width of the main house (7.6m), and the other would have had width 2.7m, less than half the width of the main house. The key issue was whether the combined width of the two proposed side extensions would be contrary to Class A, part A.1(h), which states that “Development is not permitted by Class A if … the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse, and would— … (iii) have a width greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse”.
  Appeal-Decision-104.html
• Appeal Decision 105
  The property is a two-storey detached house. Prior to 01/10/2008, a certificate of lawfulness was issued for a rear dormer that would have covered the full width and height of the rear roof, with no eaves remaining. Although a dormer has been constructed with these dimensions, the Inspector states in the appeal decision notice that the development started after 01/10/2008, and that therefore the amended Part 1 is applicable. Furthermore, the Council states in their report that the ground floor extension started prior to the completion of the rear dormer, resulting in the latter exceeding the volume tolerances. This current application involved the proposed reintroduction of the eaves. The key issue was whether the rear dormer is contrary to Class B, part B.2(b), which states that “Development is permitted by Class B subject to the following conditions … (b) other than in the case of a hip-to-gable enlargement, the edge of the enlargement closest to the eaves of the original roof shall, so far as practicable, be not less than 20 centimetres from the eaves of the original roof”.
  Appeal-Decision-105.html
• Appeal decision 106
  The property is a semi-detached house within a conservation area. The property has an original single-storey rear projection on the side away from the adjoining semi number 5, such that the infill areas of the two semi-detached properties are in the middle. The application was for a proposed single storey conservatory to the side of the original single-storey rear projection, within this infill area. The key issue was whether the proposed extension would be contrary to Class A, part A.2(b), which states that “In the case of a dwellinghouse on article 1(5) land, development is not permitted by Class A if … the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse”.
  Appeal-decision-106.html
• Appeal Decision 107
  The property is a two-storey mid-terrace house. Its rear elevation is slightly staggered, such that the part that projects slightly further rearward has a lower eaves than the other part. The application was for proposed two-storey / single storey rear extension, with the two-storey part in the centre of the rear elevation (set away from the boundaries) and the single storey part to the sides. The proposed two-storey part would have projected 3m from the rear wall of the main house, with a stagger to match that of the main house. However, the entire eaves of the proposed two-storey part would have been at the level of the higher eaves on the main house, rather than having a stagger to match that of the main house.
  Appeal-Decision-107.html
• Appeal Decision 108
  The property is a two-storey end-of-terrace house, and the application was for a proposed rear dormer. It appears that the applicant did not specify what materials would be used for the roof and the sides of the proposed rear dormer. The key issue was whether the lack of specification of what materials would be used for the proposed rear dormer would be contrary to Class B, part B.2(a), which requires that “the materials used in any exterior work shall be of a similar appearance to those used in the construction of the exterior of the existing dwellinghouse”.
  Appeal-Decision-108.html
• Appeal Decision 109
  The property is a two-storey semi-detached house, with a single storey side projection (along the full length of the side elevation of the main house). The application was for a first floor side extension, which would have been directly on top the existing single storey side projection, and for a single storey rear extension, which would have covered the combined width of the rear elevation of the main house plus the rear elevation of the existing single storey side projection. The first key issue was whether the first floor side extension would be contrary to Class A, part A.1(h), which states that “Development is not permitted by Class A if … the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse, and would— (i) exceed 4 metres in height, (ii) have more than one storey, or (iii) have a width greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse”.
  Appeal-Decision-109.html
• Appeal Decision 110
  The property is a detached house with an original single storey side projection. The application was for a proposed first floor extension on top of the latter structure. The Council refused the applicant on the basis that the proposed extension would be contrary to Class A, part A.1(d) and Class A, part A.1(h).
  Appeal-Decision-110.html
• Appeal Decision 111
  The property is a two-storey detached house. This part of Highfield Road is curved, such that the north elevation of the property faces onto Highfield Road directly, whilst the east elevation of the property faces onto Highfield Road at an angle (see OS map at the end of the appeal decision notice). The application was for a proposed two-storey extension to the west elevation, the ground floor of which would project 4m from the west elevation and the first floor of which would project 3m. The roof of the two-storey extension would join onto the roof of the main house, with eaves at the same level and a ridge-line at a slightly lower level.
  Appeal-Decision-111.html
• Appeal decision 112
  The property is a two-storey semi-detached house, with a two-storey side extension (covering the full length of the side elevation of the main house). The property has two existing single storey rear extensions – one across the full width of the rear elevation of the two-storey side extension, and the other across the majority of the width of the rear elevation of the main house. As such, between these two existing extensions, the minority of the width of the rear elevation of the main house has not been extended. The proposals would erect a single storey rear extension within this area.
  Appeal-decision-112.html
• Appeal decision 113
  The property is a two-storey detached house, with a main roof that has a front and rear pitch with gable sides. The application was for a proposed two-storey rear extension, the roof of which would have joined onto the roof of the main house (with eaves and ridge-line at matching heights), and two separate rear dormers. Although the description of the application refers to the proposed rear extension as “two-storey” (i.e. at ground and first floor levels), the part of this extension that would have joined onto the roof of the main house would also have contained a room (i.e. at second floor level), meaning that the proposed rear extension could also have been described as “three-storey”. Those parts of the proposed rear extension that would have been within 2m of the side boundaries would have been reduced to single storey.
  Appeal-decision-113.html
• Appeal Decision 114
  The property is a two-storey detached house, which is in the shape of a “T”, with the top of the “T” being the front elevation of the property facing the highway, and the arm of the “T” being an original two-storey rear projection coming off the centre of the rear elevation. As such, the property has two infill areas, one on each side of the original two-storey rear projection, and within each of these infill areas there is an existing single storey rear extension. The application was for a proposed first floor rear extension on top of one of these existing single storey rear extensions, and for an extension to an existing outbuilding. The proposed first floor rear extension would have projected 3m from the rear-facing wall within the infill area.
  Appeal-Decision-114.html
• Appeal decision 115
  The property is a large two-storey detached house set within very large grounds. The application was for a proposed first floor rear extension, a proposed outbuilding to contain a swimming pool, sauna, bar area, changing room, WC, plant room, store (the “Pool House”), and a proposed outbuilding to contain a snooker room, gym, bar area, kitchenette area, changing room and WC (the “Leisure Building”).
  Appeal-decision-115.html
• Appeal Decison 116
  The property is a two-storey semi-detached house, and the application was for a proposed rear dormer and front rooflight. The proposals included two flues and one SVP, all of which would have protruded out of the flat roof of the dormer. The key issue was whether the two flues and one SVP on the roof of the proposed rear dormer would be contrary to Class B, part B.1(d), which states that “Development is not permitted by Class B if … it would consist of or include … (ii) the installation, alteration or replacement of a chimney, flue or soil and vent pipe”
  Appeal-Decison-116.html
• Appeal Decision 117
  The property is a detached house set within large grounds. The application, which was received on 26/06/2010, was for an existing outbuilding (“spa”). Henley Road runs west-east, the property is to the north of this road with its front elevation facing south, and the outbuilding is situated to the south-east of the property (i.e. not directly in front of the principal elevation, but still in front of the imaginary line of this principal elevation when extended to either side).
  Appeal-Decision-117.html
• Appeal Decision 118
  The property is a two-storey detached house. One part of the main roof consists of a front gable with a ridge-line running from front to rear, and ending in a rear hipped section, whilst the other part of the main roof is flat. Along the front elevation of both the front gable and the flat roof runs a small strip of pitched roof. The application was for a proposed roof extension, which would resulted in both of the existing parts of the roof being converted into a hipped roof at the front and a gable roof at the rear. As this situation is difficult to describe, please refer to the submitted plans.
  Appeal-Decision-118.html
• Appeal Decision 119
  The property is a two-storey semi-detached house, with an original single storey rear projection (outhouse with depth 1.9m) across part of the width of its rear elevation. The width of this outhouse has previously been reduced, and on the remainder of the rear elevation a single storey rear extension with depth 3.5m has previously been constructed. The application was for a proposed single storey extension directly to the rear of this outhouse, to the same depth as the existing single storey rear extension (i.e. depth 1.6m from the rear of the outhouse, which is equivalent to depth 3.5m from the line of the remainder of the rear elevation). The application was also for a proposed rear dormer, and a proposed outbuilding.
  Appeal-Decision-119.html
• Appeal Decision 120
  The property is a two-storey mid-terrace house within a conservation area. The property has a long original single storey rear projection, which covers part of the width of the rear elevation. Directly to the side of this, within the infill area, the application would have erected a single storey side infill conservatory, which would have projected beyond the end of the original single storey rear projection.
  Appeal-Decision-120.html
• Appeal Decision 121
  The property is a two-storey semi-detached house with an original two-storey rear projection. Directly to the rear of the latter structure, there is an existing single storey rear extension. The application would have removed the latter extension, and would have erected a large outbuilding detached from the rear wall of the original two-storey rear projection by just 5cm. The outbuilding would have covered the full width of the site, and would have had length 8m. An inward-opening door in the rear elevation of the original two-storey rear projection would have been within very close proximity to an inward-opening door in the outbuilding, allowing direct access between the two structures, although no part of the two structures would touch. Please see the submitted drawings for further information.
  Appeal-Decision-121.html
• Appeal Decision 122
  The property is a two-storey semi-detached house with a long rear garden. The application (for both appeals) was for a proposed outbuilding at the end of the rear garden, which would have had overall width 8m, length 9m, and height 2.5m – 4.0m. In appeal A, the walls of the outbuilding would have been 2m from the boundaries, meaning that the projecting eaves would have been closer than 2m. In appeal B, the walls of the outbuilding would have been 2.05m from the boundaries, meaning that the projecting eaves would not have been closer than 2m.
  Appeal-Decision-122.html

• GPDO Appeal category index
  GPPDO Appeall category index
  GPDO-Appeal-category-index.html

• Principal elevation
  Principal-elevation.html
• Rear wall of original dwelling house
  Rear-wall-of-original-dwelling-house.html
• A side elevation of the original dwelling house
  A-side-elevation-of-the-original-dwelling-house.html
• wrap around extensions
  wrap-around-extensions.html
• How close for detached garden buildings to main dwelling
  How-close-for-detached-garden-buildings-to-main-dwelling.html
• Highest part of the roof
  Highest-part-of-the-roof.html
• Basements
  Basements.html
• Development within the curtliage of a dwelling house
  Development-within-the-curtliage-of-a-dwelling-house.html
• Conditions
  Conditions.html
• Applications received prior to 01-1-2008 yet determined on or after 01-10-2008
  Applications-received-prior-to-01-1-2008-yet-determined-on-or-after-01-10-2008.html
• Applications received on or after 01-10-2008 for works that were begun prior to 01-10-2008
  Applications-received-on-or-after-01-10-2008-for-works-that-were-begun-prior-to-01-10-2008.html
• General
  General.html
• Class A development
  Class-A-development.html
• Class B development
  Class-B-development.html
• Class C development
  Class-C-development.html
• Class D development
  Class-D-development.html
• Class E development
  Class-E-development.html
• Class F development
  Class-F-development.html
• Class G development
  Class-G-development.html
• Class H development
  Class-H-development.html
• Incidental Use Appeal Decisions
  Incidental-Use-Appeal-Decisions.html
• Use of a property
  Use-of-a-property.html

• Articles
  Articles relating to planning permission and permitted development will guide you through the process of assessing your own home extension scheme. Lots of help and advice on various issues relating to loft conversions, house extensions, dormer windows and garden buildings. Permitted development is not easy to fully understand.
  Articles.html

• Class A to H Permitted Development explained
  The permitted development rights are split into several sections from Class A to Class H all covering different aspects of what you can add to your home without applying for formal planning permission.
  Class-A-to-H-Permitted-Development-explained.html
• History of Planning in the UK
  An overview of the history of town and country planning controls in the UK which has led to the current permitted development rights.
  History-of-Planning-in-the-UK.html
• Detached garden buildings and enclosures under permitted development rules
  If you are considering a garden lodge, office, garden studio, swimming pool building, shed, store, garage or enclosure than you will need to know & understand the Permitted Development rules for such structures well before you place the order.
  Detached-garden-buildings-and-enclosures-under-permitted-development-rules.html
• Micro generation permitted development
  The governments quest for lowering the carbon footprint within the UK is partly centred on giving greater freedoms for homeowners to install energy producing or saving equipment on or within their property. Microgeneration for each property or smaller community is seen as one solution and allowing this under permitted development is meant to take the control of what you can install out of the Planners hands.
  Micro-generation-permitted-development.html
• Permitted development listed buildings
  Almost all external alterations and extensions to an existing building that is listed will require planning permission. However for unlisted dwellings certain small domestic extensions and other alterations are granted planning permission automatically (permitted development) where they affect a house which is occupied as a 'single family dwelling' and is not subdivided to form flats.
  Permitted-development-listed-buildings.html
• Permitted Development Flats
  Most of these permitted development rights do not apply to flats or listed buildings, and the limits are more restrictive for houses in conservation areas.
  Permitted-Development-Flats.html
• Permitted Development Demolition
  In the case of demolition of dwellinghouses or buildings adjoining dwellinghouses, this planning permission cannot be exercised (i.e. demolition cannot take place) unless the developer has applied to the local planning authority for a determination of whether the prior approval of the authority will be required to the method of the proposed demolition and any proposed restoration of the site.
  Permitted-Development-Demolition.html
• Permitted Development Agricultural Buildings
  Permitted development rights are not available for farm or forestry dwellings, or for livestock units sited near residential and similar buildings. Before making use of agricultural permitted development rights, you should check if the local planning authority requires prior approval.
  Permitted-Development-Agricultural-Buildings.html
• Permitted Development Solar Panels
  The installation of solar panels and wind turbines under permitted development refers to single family dwellinghouses. The term "dwellinghouse" does not include residential flats, whether in purpose-built blocks or in converted houses or other buildings.
  Permitted-Development-Solar-Panels.html
• Renewable Energy Permitted Development
  Installing certain renewable energy technologies, such as solar panels and biomass boilers, has now been made a lot simpler thanks to Permitted development rights introduced on 6th April 2008 in England and 12th March 2009 in Scotland.
  Renewable-Energy-Permitted-Development.html
• Permitted Development Consultation
  Who do you consult for initial advice on permitted development. The Planning Department, we are, told is your first stop regarding advice and help. However, Permitted Development consultation advice can be a bit of a lottery regarding the quality and efficiency of the advice from Planning Departments nationwide.
  Permitted-Development-Consultation.html
• Permitted Development Conservation Areas
  Conservation Areas are classed as Article 1(5) land within planning legislation and much of the permitted development allowances for altering or extending a domestic property is prevented if your property is within a conservation area.
  Permitted-Development-Conservation-Areas.html
• Permitted Development Loft Conversions
  The limits for erecting extensions to the roof of a domestic dwelling as part of a permitted development loft conversion are much the same as the previous legislation. You still cannot erect a dormer or alter the roof at the front of a property if it affronts a highway so no change there.
  Permitted-Development-Loft-Conversions.html
• Permitted Development Extensions
  Extensions for permitted development to domestic dwellings fall under class A of the GPDO in most cases. There is other criteria for extensions to a dwellings roof for example but this section will simply concentrate on permitted development for home extensions.
  Permitted-Development-Extensions.html
• Permitted Development Legislation
  As of 1st October 2008 new legislation came into force which affects the permitted development rights of domestic properties, most Councils have produced a set of guidance notes to assist you with these changes. Advice that you have been given in the past on permitted development structures or alterations may no longer apply under the current rules. Please check with each Local Authority Planning Dept. first as you may need clarification.
  Permitted-Development-Legislation.html
• Householder Permitted Development
  The revised permitted development rules apply to all homeowners. This latest wording of the permitted development affects all householders. To ensure that you comply read this website thoroughly for an initial determination, check out the various links to external sources of information and then go see your friendly and helpful Planning Department.
  Householder-Permitted-Development.html
• Permitted Development Scotland
  Scotland has their own Planning Legislation or statutory instruments as they are known. This web site does not cover any aspects of Scottish Planning law and permitted development and you are advised to seek the information elsewhere.
  Permitted-Development-Scotland.html
• Telecommunications Permitted Development
  The erection of telecommunication masts under Permitted Development is a complicated route which is not covered by this web site. Mobile phone operators used to enjoy quite a lot of freedom regarding these installations without needing formal Planning Approval. However, they now have to submit certain details but if the Council does not respond within certain time frames, Approval for the mast is deemed to have automatically been granted.
  Telecommunications-Permitted-Development.html
• Agricultural Permitted Development
  This web site only seeks to explore the permitted development issues relating to domestic dwellings rather than agricultural buildings. However, even a farm house is usually treated as a single domestic dwelling within its own defined residential curtilage that can utilise its permitted development rights.
  Agricultural-Permitted-Development.html
• Permitted Development Limits
  The amount of what you can build under the current permitted development limits is stated within the latest GPDO legislation but the wording & phrasing of the legislation has caused a lot of confusion for designers and home owners alike.
  Permitted-Development-Limits.html
• Permitted Development Outbuildings
  Outbuildings are categorised as most detached structures that are deemed to be of an ancillary use to the main dwelling and wholly located within the residential curtilage of the domestic single use dwelling. Permitted development for outbuildings also have a wide range of height and size restrictions.
  Permitted-Development-Outbuildings.html
• What can stop permitted development
  As permitted Development primarily only applies to dwellings (not flats) homeowners should be aware that even if their extension appears to fall within the descriptions of the latest PD criteria, your particular site may have some unique situations that would prevent you from implementing your extension or alterations scheme under permitted development.
  What-can-stop-permitted-development.html

• Resources
  Resources of links and downloads relating to permitted development and planning permision issues in general.
  Resources.html

• News
  Press releases and news items on permitted development from a wide range of intersted sources from government to professional institutions. Read the spin and the opinions of the consultations on this peice of planning legislation.
  News.html

• What is comming in PD Legislation
  Read what the government have planned for us on the new Permitted Development rights for commercial buildings.
  What-is-comming-in-PD-Legislation.html

• Contact Us
  Contact details for The Christopher Hunt Practice.
  Contact-Us.html
• Ask us a question
  Ask us a question on your specific permitted development query or project. For a small fee we may be able to answer your question without you spending hours researching this web site.
  Ask-us-a-question.html

• Questions previously received
  Here is a list of the typical questions we get asked to comment on regarding permitted development issues.
  Questions-previously-received.html

• Planning Permission Information
  Should your building scheme not fall under the sites Permitted Development allowances and you do need to apply for Planning Permission, then parts of this section of our web site may prove useful.
  Planning-Permission-Information.html

• Planning Application Fees
  The following Fees apply to England Only. To comply with the Town & Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2008
  Planning-Application-Fees.html

• Privacy
  Privacy Policy
  Privacy.html
• About Us
  About The Christopher Hunt Practice (CHP)
  About-Us.html
• Interview with the owner
  Interview with the owner of the permitted development web site.
  Interview-with-the-owner.html
• Summary of Permitted Development Changes October 2008
  Summary of the Permitted Development (PD) changes starting October 1st 2008.
  Summary-of-Permitted-Development-Changes-October-2008.html
• Certificate of Lawful Development
  The Certificate of Lawful Development (Certificate of Lawfulness). What it is and how it can be of benefit to your building project.
  Certificate-of-Lawful-Development.html
• FAQ
  Frequently Asked Questions FAQ's on Permitted Development and planning in general.
  FAQ.html
• Glossary of Planning Terms
  Planning terminology is full of jargon. Use our glossary of planning terms to understand the words within most planning permission documents.
  Glossary-of-Planning-Terms.html
• Downloads of Permitted Development information
  Download information and diagrams of Permitted Development - PD
  Downloads-of-Permitted-Development-information.html

• PD Diagram Part 1 Classes A and D
  PD Diagram Part 1 Classes A and D
  PD-Diagram-Part-1-Classes-A-and-D.html
• PD Diagram Part 1 Classes B and C
  PD Diagram Part 1 Classes B and C
  PD-Diagram-Part-1-Classes-B-and-C.html
• PD Diagram Part 1 Class E
  PD Diagram Part 1 Class E
  PD-Diagram-Part-1-Class-E.html
• PD Diagram Part 1 Class F
  PD Diagram Part 1 Class F
  PD-Diagram-Part-1-Class-F.html
• PD Diagram Part 1 Class G
  PD Diagram Part 1 Class G
  PD-Diagram-Part-1-Class-G.html
• PD Diagram Part 1 Class H
  PD Diagram Part 1 Class H
  PD-Diagram-Part-1-Class-H.html
• Download Building Regulations Approved Documents
  Download Building Regulations Approved Documents
  Download-Building-Regulations-Approved-Documents.html
• Download The Party Wall Act Document
  Download The Party Wall Act Document
  Download-The-Party-Wall-Act-Document.html
• Download the latest PD legal document
  Download the latest PD legal document
  Download-the-latest-PD-legal-document.html
• Download the old PD legal document
  Download the old PD legal document
  Download-the-old-PD-legal-document.html
• Download a farmers guide to the planning system
  Download a farmers guide to the planning system
  Download-a-farmers-guide-to-the-planning-system.html
• Download a guide to permeable surfaces
  Download a guide to permeable surfaces
  Download-a-guide-to-permeable-surfaces.html
• Download statutory instruments
  Download statutory instruments
  Download-statutory-instruments.html
• DCLG draft guidance on permitted development easter 2010
  DCLG draft guidance on permitted development - easter 2010. At last some official response from the powers that made this poor peice of planning legilsation. It is just draft so please wait until the formal copy is issued.
  DCLG-draft-guidance-on-permitted-development-easter-2010.html
• Download commercial permitted development rights
  Download commercial permitted development rights document. Statutory instrument No. 654 released in April 2010.
  Download-commercial-permitted-development-rights.html

• Report a Broken Link
  Report Broken Links - This web site is reliant upion feedback & its performance acn diminish
  Report-a-Broken-Link.html
• searchresults
  Search results page for Google building design on permitted development rights
  searchresults.html
• Disclaimer
  Disclaimer on using the Permitted Development web site
  Disclaimer.html
• Site Map
  sitemap-page-order.html