Due to the Permitted Development being so poorly phrased & ambiguous, it was clear from the outset that Appeals to the Planning Inspectorate would occur. Just over a year has now elapsed since we were saddled with the 'so called' freeing up of Council Planning Constraints for domestic home owners which has now produced some important appeal decisions that will now be referred to by the Planners as being a definitive answer to many of the ambiguities.
Here we schedule some appeal decisions for a variety of home owner C of LD applications that were originally denied by the respective Local Planning Authority and their internal Legal Dept. Most have been upheld by the Inspector so it proves that most Councils appear to be taking a pragmatic and sensible approach to the interpretations which is refreshing.
The national average for the home owner winning an appeal for a certificate of Lawful Development is currently running at around 42% (94 won & 134 dismissed).
This is above the national winning average of around 33% for normal Planning Application Appeals.
My conclusion is therefore that many Planning Departments are refusing far more C of LD Certifcates than they would normally do under formal Planning Permission. I would also assess from this higher 'won appeals' figure is that they (the Planners) are perhaps being far more cautious or restrictive with their own interpetations of the revised GPDO legislation than should be necessary.
With these appeals now entering the 100 in number since November 2008 and covering a wide range of typical issues that most home owners will be encountering when trying to implement their own PD rights, the establishement of more exact guidance as defined within these appeal decisions should be getting less ambiguous with regard to meaning & interpretation.
As time goes on, these appeal decisions plus others to follow will provide even more clarity for the home owner (& Local Planning Deprtments) wishing to extend or develop their property within the framework of the legal permitted development rights.
Read the Inspectors report for yourselves for each building proposal that may be of interest to you. We have also reproduced a short report and conclusion for each case.
Another interesting point to note is the extent of variance that even the Appeal Inspectors have when determining the PD wording. There are many instances within these appeal decisions were contrary & conflicting interpretations have been made for similar situations or site conditions.
Appeal Decisions - Lists of sites for Certificate of Lawful Development.
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 26 - 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. The first key issue was whether the proposed outbuilding would be contrary to Class E, part E.1(g), which states that "Development is not permitted by Class E if …it would include the construction or provision of a veranda, balcony or raised platform".
Appeal Decision 27 - The property is a semi-detached house, 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".
Appeal Decision 28 - 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.
Apeal Decision 29 -The property is a two-storey end-of-terrace house, 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 was 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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".
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.
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".
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".
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.
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".
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.
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".
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".
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".
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".
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.
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".
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.
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.
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".
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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".
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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).
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.
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.
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").
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".
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".
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".
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".
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".
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".
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.
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".
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".
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).
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.
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").
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).
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.
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.
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.
The property is a semi-detached house. The applications were for a proposed single storey rear extension, and a proposed rear dormer. The outer wall of the proposed single storey rear extension would have projected 3m from the rear wall of the main house, but the soffit and fascia of the flat roof of this extension would have then projected slightly past this line.
The property is a two-storey semi-detached house. The application was for the retention of a hip-to-gable roof extension, rear dormer, and two front rooflights. The first key issue was whether the use of "granulated roofing felt" on the flat roof of the dormer was 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 property is a large detached house, with its front elevation facing west towards the highway. At the northern end of its rear elevation, the property has an original two-storey rear projection. In the middle of its rear elevation (i.e. adjoining the southern side elevation of the original two-storey rear projection) there is a two-storey rear extension that was erected in the 1980s.
The property is a semi-detached house, and the application was for a proposed outbuilding at the end of the rear garden. The proposed outbuilding would have had a ridge-line at height 4m, with a pitched roof down each side, a gable end at the front, and a hipped end at the rear. The proposed outbuilding would have been located within 0.5m of the rear and side boundaries, and its roof slopes have been designed such that those parts of the outbuilding within 2m of the boundaries would have had height no higher than 2.5m, whilst those parts of the outbuilding further than 2m from the boundaries would have had height greater than 2.5m.
The property is a detached house, with its south elevation fronting Glencathara Road. It has a rectangular shape, with narrower south and north elevations, and wider west and east elevations. The application was for a proposed single storey extension, which would have covered the whole of the north elevation, and would have projected eastward to a point approx 12m beyond the line of the east elevation. It would have a dual-pitched roof with eaves at 2.9m and ridge-line at 3.9m.
The property is a two-storey end-of-terrace house, with an original two-storey rear projection. The main roof of the property is a butterfly roof (i.e. with a central valley running from front to rear) with raised front and side parapet walls. The application was for a proposed roof extension, which would have been located on one half of the main butterfly roof and on the roof of the original two-storey rear projection. The highest part of the proposed roof extension would have been level with the top of the front parapet wall. The submitted drawings did not state what materials would be used for the proposed roof extension, and did not state whether the proposed new side velux windows would be obscure-glazed or non-opening.
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 Council first reason for refusal was on the basis that "the element of the proposed rear dormer to be sited on the roof of the two storey rear projection is not part of the roof structure and therefore is not considered to constitute Permitted Development under Article 3 and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class B …". As such, the first key issue was whether the part of the proposed dormer on the roof of the original rear projection would fall under the scope of Class B.
The property is a house, which is located within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), and the application was for a proposed outbuilding (double garage). There is a good description of the proposals within the appeal decision notice (see extract below). 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".
The property is a two-storey house with an original two-storey rear projection. A large rear dormer has been constructed, which has involved raising the main ridge-line. This application was submitted under section 192, and the submitted drawings appear to show an amended rear dormer that would not involve raising the main ridge-line.
The property is a two-storey semi-detached house with an original two-storey rear projection. Although I have been unable to view the drawings for this application, it appears from the decision notice that the application was for a proposed rear and side infill extension. Directly to the side of the original two-storey rear projection, within the infill area, the proposals would have left a courtyard area (length 2.45m). The proposed extension would then have covered the remaining rearmost part of the infill area, and would have projected 3m beyond the end of the original two-storey rear projection, wrapping around the rear of the latter.
The property is a two-storey mid-terrace house, with an original three-storey rear projection. The application was for a proposed single storey extension, which would have been attached to the rear wall of the original three-storey rear projection. The proposed extension would have projected 3m from this rear wall, and would have extended sideways to cover the full width of the site, leaving an enclosed courtyard (patio garden) for the length of the infill area.
The property is a detached house, and the application was for a large proposed outbuilding (garage and office) at the end of the rear garden. The proposed outbuilding would have an L-shaped footprint, all of which would be at least 2m from the boundary. The proposed outbuilding would have a dual-pitched roof along each of the lengths of the L, with a merging section where these two roofs meet and a gable end at either end.
The property is a three-storey mid-terrace house. The submitted application form for this certificate of lawfulness gave the following "Description of Proposal": "Replacement of windows to rear elevation of annex including formation of new windows".
The property is a two-storey semi-detached house, with a hipped main roof. The application was for a proposed rear and side dormer. The submitted drawings stated that the face of the side dormer would be brick. The Council refused the application on the basis that the brickwork that was proposed for the face of the side dormer would not be similar in appearance to the materials used in the construction of the exterior of the existing roof (which predominantly consists of blue tiling).
The property is a two-storey mid-terrace house, with an original two-storey rear projection. The application was for a proposed dormer, which would have been predominantly on the side roof of the original two-storey rear projection, as well as on part of the rear roof of the main part of the house.
The property is a two-storey detached house, with the east elevation fronting Wykeham Road and the south elevation fronting Prothero Gardens (both highways used by vehicular traffic). The property has an existing single storey extension on the west elevation, and the application was for a proposed first floor extension above this existing extension.
The property is a two-storey detached house. The principal elevation is the north elevation, and this fronts onto a footway, rather than a road (or the pavement of a road). The application was for a proposed single storey side extension which would project forward of the line of the principal elevation by approx 5m.
The property is a two-storey house, and the application was for a proposed single storey rear conservatory with length greater than 3m. The west side of the property is attached at first floor level only to number 692, which is a two-storey property used as a dental surgery, with an open passageway at ground floor level. The key issue was whether the property is "detached" or not for the purposes of 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 by more than 4 metres in the case of a detached dwellinghouse, or 3 metres in the case of any other dwellinghouse".
The property is a two-storey semi-detached house, with an existing extension across part of the width of its rear elevation. The application was for a proposed single storey rear extension (conservatory) across the remaining width of the rear elevation. The proposed extension would have had a pitched roof, with the lower end at height less than 3m and the higher end at height more than 3m (but less than 4m).
The property is a very large two-storey detached house, set within substantial grounds and located within a conservation area. The application was for a proposed single storey rear extension and two proposed outbuildings. The outbuildings would be situated just rearward of the line of the rear elevation of the house, but just forward of the line of the rear elevation of the proposed single storey rear extension.
The property is a two-storey semi-detached house with an original rear projection (which is part-two-storey and part-single-storey). The application was for an extension within the side infill area, which would have length 5.0m as measured from the rear wall within the infill area, projecting 1.92m beyond the end of the original rear projection. 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 property is a detached house. The application was for a structure that the appellant considered would fall under Class D (i.e. a "porch") whereas the Council considered would fall under Class A (i.e. an "extension"). As I have been unable to view the drawings for this application, please refer to the extract below from the appeal decision notice for a further description of the proposals.
The property is a very large detached house, with an original rear wall that is stepped. The application was for a proposed single storey extension, which would have wrapped around an original rear projection with an L-shaped footprint. The proposed extension would have had length 11.0m as measured from the rear wall within the infill area, and length 4m as measured from the rear wall of the original rear projection.
The property is a large detached house, which has previously been significantly extended. The application was for a proposed single storey rear extension. The outer wall of the proposed extension would project 4m from the rear wall of the main house, and the eaves / roof overhang would project a further 0.25m (to a total of 4.25m).
The property is a two-storey detached house, with a hipped main roof. Its north-west elevation is referred to in the appeal decision notice as the "front" elevation, and it appears very clear from the submitted drawings that this north-west elevation is "the principal elevation". The application was for a proposed hip-to-gable extension on each of the north-east and south-west elevations, and for a proposed dormer on the south-east elevation. The applicant had accepted that the windows in the dormer (i.e. south-east facing windows) would be clear glazed.
The property is a two-storey semi-detached house, which has previously been significantly extended. From the submitted drawings and the OS map, it appears that these extensions consist of a two-storey side extension, a two-storey rear extension, and a single storey rear extension. The latter structure is relatively high, with its ridge-line only slightly below the level of the eaves of the two-storey rear extension. The application was for a proposed roof extension.
The property is a two-storey mid-terrace house with an original three-storey rear projection. The application was for an extension within the side infill area, which would have had length 6.2m matching the length of the infill area. 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 property is a two-storey mid-terrace house, and the application was for a proposed single storey rear extension. The submitted drawing 6393ELS-02 shows that the proposed extension would have a flat roof, with side parapet walls. The main issue was whether permitted development rights had been removed by a condition on a previous planning permission, and the Inspector concluded that they had been removed. However, the Inspector also considered (from a hypothetical point of view) whether the proposed extension would have been permitted development anyway (i.e. if permitted development rights hadn't been removed).
The application, which was made after 01/10/2008 (in 2010) was for an existing extension, which the appellant claimed was begun before 01/10/2008. The Inspector stated the following: "If the work on the conservatory commenced before 1 October 2008, it would have been permitted development by virtue of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (GPDO).
The property is a detached chalet bungalow – i.e. a main ground floor level, with a roof containing habitable rooms (with dormers). The application was for a proposed front extension, a proposed rear extension, and a proposed side extension. All of these structures would have a main ground floor level; for each of the front and rear extensions the roof would contain habitable rooms and would join onto the roof of the main house, whilst for the side extension the roof would much lower (and would not contain habitable rooms nor join onto the roof of the main house).
The property is a two-storey mid-terrace house, with an original two-storey rear projection. The property is located within a conservation area. The application was for various works including a proposed external metal staircase, which would be located within the side infill area. The staircase would have a spiral design, typical dimensions, and would provide access from a new side door at first floor level to the rear garden.
The property is a two-storey mid-terrace house. The property has an original two-storey rear projection, to the rear of which appears to be a narrower original single storey rear projection. The application was for an extension within the side infill area, which would have had length 3.9m matching the length of the original two-storey rear projection.
The property is a two-storey semi-detached house, and the application was for a proposed hip-to-gable roof extension, a large rear dormer, and front rooflights. The proposed rear dormer would have been set back by more than 20cm from the outer edge of the section of the roof overhanging the rear wall of the house, but less than 20cm from the point where the vertical plane of this wall meets the slope of the roof.
The property is a two-storey semi-detached house, which has previously been significantly extended. These previous extensions include a two-storey side and rear extension, with a roof that joints onto the roof of the main house. The application was for a proposed roof extension to the roof of the main house. The key issue was whether the proposed enlargement of the roof would be contrary to Class B, part B.1(c), which states that "Development is not permitted by Class B if … the cubic content of the resulting roof space would exceed the cubic content of the original roof space by more than— (i) 40 cubic metres in the case of a terrace house, or (ii) 50 cubic metres in any other case".
The property is a two-storey semi-detached house, and the application was for a proposed porch outside the main front door. The walls of the proposed porch would have width 2.64m and length 1.1m (measured externally), giving an area of 2.9m2, and the pitched roof of the proposed porch would have a maximum height of 2.9m. However, the roof of the proposed porch would significantly project sideways beyond the line of the side walls, resulting in a structure similar to a projecting canopy that would join onto the roofs of the nearby bay windows.
The property is a detached bungalow, with its front elevation facing south-east towards a public footpath. The application was for a proposed single storey front extension. The key issue was whether the proposed 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".
The property is a two-storey semi-detached house. The property has an older single storey rear extension (length 3.5m), to the rear of which a newer single storey rear conservatory (length 3.0m) has been erected. The application was a retrospective application for a certificate of lawfulness for the newer single storey rear conservatory. 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 property is a house, and the application was for an outbuilding that would be detached from the rear wall of the original house by just 2.5cm. As I was unable to view the drawings for this application, please refer to the extract below from the appeal decision notice for further details. The key issue was whether a structure in such close proximity to the main house would fall under Class A, which relates to "The enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse", or under Class E, which relates to "The provision within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse of … any building …".
The property is a two-storey mid-terrace house, and the application was a proposed rear dormer and a proposed single storey rear extension. The proposed rear dormer would be set back by more than 20cm from the outer edge of the section of the roof overhanging the rear wall of the house, but less than 20cm from the point where the vertical plane of this wall meets the slope of the roof.
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 property is a two-storey house, for which the front door was originally contained within a small single storey front projection with height greater than 3m (this feature is repeated on the adjoining property). This original front projection has previously been incorporated into a much larger front porch, with the pitched roof of the former structure replaced by part of the curved roof of the latter structure. It appears that these works are the subject of an enforcement notice. This application proposed to remove the existing much larger porch, to reinstate the pitched roof of the original front projection (height greater than 3m), and to erect a new smaller porch in front of the original front projection.
The property is a detached house, and the application was for a proposed two-storey rear extension. The outer wall of the proposed extension would project 3m from the rear wall of the main house, and the eaves / roof overhang would project slightly further (see submitted drawings). The key issue was whether the proposed 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".
The property is a detached bungalow set within substantial grounds, and the application was for a proposed outbuilding, which would be located to the side of the property. The proposed outbuilding would have an L-shaped footprint, all of which would be at least 2m from the boundary. The proposed outbuilding would have a dual-pitched roof along each of the lengths of the L, with a merging section where these two roofs meet and a gable end at either end.
The property is a detached house, and the application was for a proposed outbuilding at the end of the rear garden. The proposed outbuilding would be located at least 2m from the boundaries, and would have a mansard type roof, with a pitch on either side and a flat section on top (see drawings). The eaves would be at height 2.5m, and the flat roof would be at height 4.0m.
The property is a detached house, and the application was for a proposed outbuilding to the side of the house. The proposed outbuilding would have a flat roof (with small parapet walls) at height 3m, and would be more than 2m from the boundaries. The key issue was whether the height of the proposed outbuilding 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".
The property is a two-storey semi-detached house. The application was for a proposed single storey side and rear extension, which would have projected from the side elevation (by less than half the width of the house) and then wrapped around the rear/side corner to project from the full-width of the rear elevation (by 3m). The key issue was whether the proposed side and rear 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".
The property is a detached house, and the application was for a proposed two-storey rear extension. As I was unable to view the drawings for this application, please refer to the extract below from the appeal decision notice for further details. The key issue was whether the proposed 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, or (ii) be within 7 metres of any boundary of the curtilage of the dwellinghouse opposite the rear wall of the dwellinghouse".
The property is a two-storey mid-terrace house, and the application was for a proposed single storey rear extension. The proposals would have involved building up the party wall between the application site and the adjoining number 16. The key issue was whether the works to the party wall would constitute "Development within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse" and fall within the scope of Part 1 of the GPDO.
The property is a three-storey end-of-terrace house. The application was for a proposed three-storey rear extension, which would have been 1.3m (i.e. less than 2m) from the boundary with number 42. The roof of the proposed extension would have been dual-pitched in the centre, with a parapet wall to the rear and a small area of flat roof on either side. The key issue was whether the proposals would be contrary to Class A, part A.1(g), which states that "Development is not permitted by Class A if … the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would be within 2 metres of the boundary of the curtilage of the dwellinghouse, and the height of the eaves of the enlarged part would exceed 3 metres".
The property is a two-storey semi-detached house. The application included a proposed side and rear extension, the footprint of which would have covered the full length of the main side elevation (with width 2.0m) and then wrapped around the corner to cover the full width of the main rear elevation (with depth 3.0m). The part of the extension directly to the rear of the main rear elevation would have consisted of a single storey part, within 2m of the boundary, and a two-storey part, more than 2m from the boundary.
The property is a large detached house set within very considerable grounds. Indeed, the nearest highway is approx 150m from the house. The south-east elevation is the principal elevation, and it was accepted by the Council that this elevation does not front a highway. An original two-storey front projection currently projects forward from part of the width of this front elevation (towards the north-eastern end of the front elevation). The application was for a proposed (full-width) two-storey front extension, which would replace the original (part-width) two-storey front projection.
The property is a two-storey semi-detached house, on a corner where Woodside Road turns 90 degrees. The pair of semi-detached houses runs west-to-east, and the application site is the eastern one. The south elevation of the property fronts Woodside Road, and contains the main front door and two large windows. The east elevation of the property fronts Woodside Road, and contains three large windows and the back door. The main roof of the property is mono-pitched and faces towards the east. The application was for two proposed dormers, which would have been located on this east-facing mono-pitch roof.
The property is a two-storey (including roof level) semi-detached house. The property has an existing two-storey side extension, with a roof that joins onto the roof of the main house. The application was for a proposed two-storey rear extension, with a roof that would join onto the roof of the main house. The key issue was whether the proposed extension would be contrary to Class A, part A.1(i), which states that "Development is not permitted by Class A if … it would consist of or include … an alteration to any part of the roof of the dwellinghouse".
The property is a two-storey detached house in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The property is situated to the east side of Hound House Road, and has short west and east elevations, and long north and south elevations. The application was for a very large two-storey extension (with projection 11m) on the north elevation and a single storey extension (with projection 4m) on the south elevation.
The property is a two-storey semi-detached house with a hipped main roof. The application was for a proposed hip-to-gable roof extension, a large rear dormer, and two front rooflights. The key issue was whether the proposed enlargement of the roof would be contrary to Class B, part B.1(c), which states that "Development is not permitted by Class B if … the cubic content of the resulting roof space would exceed the cubic content of the original roof space by more than— (i) 40 cubic metres in the case of a terrace house, or (ii) 50 cubic metres in any other case".
The property is a detached house. The application was for a proposed outbuilding in the rear garden, which would have consisted of a "gym", "store", and a third room containing a shower, toilet, and sink. The proposed outbuilding would have had height 2.5m (eaves) to 3.944m (ridge-line), the walls of the outbuilding would have been 2.05m from the boundaries, but the projecting eaves would have been slightly closer than 2m. The key issue was whether the proposed outbuilding would be contrary to Class E, part E.1(d), which states that "Development is not permitted by Class E if … the height of the building, enclosure or container would exceed … (ii) 2.5 metres in the case of a building, enclosure or container within 2 metres of the boundary of the curtilage of the dwellinghouse".
The property is a two-storey detached house, situated to the north of the end point of a cul-de-sac. The front elevation of the property faces south-east, the rear elevation faces north-west, and the side elevations face south-west and south-east. As such, looking out from the front elevation, the direction of the highway is at an approx 45 degree angle. The application included a proposed front dormer. As the relationship between the property and the highway is relatively unusual, please refer to the submitted drawings.
The property is a two-storey detached house with a hipped main roof. The property has previously been extended with a two-storey side extension. The hipped roof of the extension joins onto the main hipped roof, with the eaves and ridge-line of the former at the same level as the eaves and ridge-line of the latter. The application proposed a rear dormer. The key issue was whether the proposed enlargement of the roof would be contrary to Class B, part B.1(c), which states that "Development is not permitted by Class B if … the cubic content of the resulting roof space would exceed the cubic content of the original roof space by more than— (i) 40 cubic metres in the case of a terrace house, or (ii) 50 cubic metres in any other case".
The property is a two-storey semi-detached house. The main roof is dual-pitched, with front and rear facing pitches and a gable end. The application was for a proposed two-storey rear extension. The roof of the proposed extension would be mono-pitched, with the pitch facing sideways towards the adjoining semi-detached property. The eaves of this mono-pitch roof (on the side nearest the adjoining semi-detached property) would be at height 3m. The first key issue was whether the proposed rear extension would be contrary to Class A, part A.1(i), which states that "Development is not permitted by Class A if … it would consist of or include … an alteration to any part of the roof of the dwellinghouse".
The 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. However, it should be noted that whilst the original two-storey rear projection is on the northern side of the rear elevation (as shown on the submitted OS map and most of the drawings), the submitted drawing 05 shows the original two-storey rear projection on the southern side of the rear elevation.
The property is a detached house. In the rear garden of the property, an outbuilding has previously been erected. This outbuilding is situated within 2m of the boundaries, and has a pitched roof with ridge-line at height 4.5m. It appears that the erection of this outbuilding began prior to 01/10/2008, and that this outbuilding had been completed some time prior to this current application (which was submitted in February 2010). This current application proposed to alter the existing outbuilding, so that it would still be within 2m of the boundaries but would have a pitched roof with ridge-line at height 3.5m.
The property is a two-storey detached house with a hipped main roof. The property has an existing two-storey rear extension with a flat roof that meets the main rear roof at a level just above where the original rear eaves would have been (the latter have therefore been removed). The application was for a proposed rear dormer, the base of which would meet the flat roof of the existing two-storey rear extension. 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 property is a two-storey (including roof level) detached house with a "chalet" type design. The main roof is dual-pitched (front and rear pitches) with very low eaves (at height 2.5m), and with the first floor level situated within the roof space (with projecting dormers). Both applications were for a proposed two-storey rear extension, with a flat roof that would join onto the main rear roof at a line just above half way up the latter. In appeal A, the ground floor of the proposed rear extension would have depth 4m and the first floor would have depth 3m. In appeal B, both storeys of the proposed rear extension would have depth 3m.
The property is a two-storey detached house, with a hipped main roof. The application was for a proposed two-storey rear extension, with a crown roof that would join onto the roof of the main house. The Council's reason for refusal was as follows: "The proposed development does not constitute permitted development … as the proposed extension, with its crown roof, would not have the same roof pitch as the original dwellinghouse".
The property is a two-storey mid-terrace house. The application was for a proposed rear dormer and front rooflight, and the submitted drawings indicated that the works involved the removal of an chimney. The key issue was whether the removal of the chimney (required for the erection of the 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".
The property is a large detached house, situated to the east of Swinley Road, and situated within a conservation area. The west elevation of the house fronts Swinley Road, whilst the north elevation of the house contains the main entrance. The application included a proposed outbuilding, which would have been situated to the north-east of the house. The key issue was whether the proposed outbuilding would be contrary to Class E, part E.1(b), which states that "Development is not permitted by Class E if … any part of the building, enclosure, pool or container would be situated on land forward of a wall forming the principal elevation of the original dwellinghouse".
The property is a detached house, situated to the south-east of Tinkers Lane, and situated within a conservation area. The principal elevation of the house faces north-west and fronts Tinkers Lane. The application was for a proposed outbuilding, which would be situated to the east of the main house, such that it would be situated behind the line of the rear elevation (and outside of the line of the side elevation). The key issue was whether the proposed outbuildings 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".
The property is a detached house, situated within a conservation area. The north-west elevation of the property contains the main entrance, whilst the south-west elevation of the property fronts the Shropshire Union Canal (which includes a tow-path). Otherwise, the property is situated a significant distance from any highway. The application was for a proposed outbuilding, which would be situated to the south-east of the house. As I was unable to view the drawings for this application, please refer to the extract below from the appeal decision notice for further details.
The property is a two-storey end-of-terrace house. The original design of this row of terraces is relatively unusual, and is best understood by viewing the property (e.g. via Google StreetView). In front of the two-storey main front wall, there is a projecting front porch (at one end of the front elevation), a projecting front canopy (covering the remaining width of the front elevation), and projecting ground floor front walls (enclosing the sides of the porch and canopy). The application was retrospective, and related to the erection of a front wall to infill this area so that it would become part of the ground floor lounge.
The property is a two-storey semi-detached house. The property has an original two-storey side projection, the short rear wall of which is not as far rearward as the much longer rear wall of the main part of the house. The application was for a proposed single storey rear extension, which would have projected 3m from the longer rear wall and therefore significantly further than 3m from the shorter rear wall. 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 property is a detached house with a chalet type design. On either side, the house has a ground floor level with a hipped roof above. In the centre, the house has a first floor level which is visible at the front (i.e. appearing as two-storeys with a standard hipped roof above), although at the sides and rear the hipped roof of this central part merges with the hipped roofs of the side parts (i.e. appearing as a single storey with double-height hipped roof above).
The property is a three-storey detached house, with a mixture of pebble dash render and timber boarding on the front elevation. The application was for various works, including the proposed installation of smooth render on the front elevation. The key issue was whether the proposals 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 property is a semi-detached house. Following a grant of planning permission, a new house is currently being built to the side of the property, with the original rear garden of the property being subdivided to form the two new rear gardens. The application was for a proposed outbuilding at the end of the rear garden, which would consists of a sunroom, gym, wet room, hot tub room, children's playroom, and WC (total footprint over 100m2). The proposed outbuilding would be located at least 2m from the boundaries, and would have a mansard type roof, with a pitch on all four sides and a flat section on top (see drawings). The eaves would be at height 2.5m, and the flat roof would be at height 4.0m.
The property is a house, and the application was for a proposed outbuilding consisting of a swimming pool building, ancillary changing rooms and underground plant. As I was unable to view the drawings for this application, please refer to the extract below from the appeal decision notice for further details. The key issue was whether the proposed outbuilding would be contrary to Class E, part E.1(b), which states that "Development is not permitted by Class E if … any part of the building, enclosure, pool or container would be situated on land forward of a wall forming the principal elevation of the original dwellinghouse".
The property is a two-storey semi-detached house with a hipped main roof. The property has previously been extended with a two-storey side extension. The hipped roof of the extension joins onto the main hipped roof, albeit with the ridge-line of the former at a lower level than the ridge-line of the latter. The application proposed to convert the hipped end of the main roof (part of which covered by the attached roof of the extension) into a gable end, to erect a large rear dormer, and to convert the half-hipped end of the two-storey side extension into a gable end.
The property is a two-storey detached house set within very considerable grounds. The south-east elevation is the principal elevation, and does not front a highway. The application was for a proposed two-storey front extension, with a roof that would join onto the roof of the main house. The key issue was whether the proposed extension would be contrary to Class A, part A.1(i), which states that "Development is not permitted by Class A if … it would consist of or include … an alteration to any part of the roof of the dwellinghouse".
The property is a two-storey mid-terrace house with an original (part-width) 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 proposed dormer would be set back by more than 20cm from the outer edge of the section of the roof overhanging the wall of the house, but less than 20cm from the point where the vertical plane of this wall meets the slope of the roof.
The property is a terrace house, and the application was for a proposed rear dormer. As I was unable to view the drawings for this application, please refer to the extract below from the appeal decision notice for further details. The key issue was whether the proposed dormer 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".
The property is a two-storey semi-detached house, which has an existing single storey rear extension with depth approx 4m. The application was for a proposed first floor rear extension with depth approx 2.9m. The key issue was whether the proposed first floor 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".
The property is a detached house. The application was for an existing outbuilding, which consists of a swimming pool (with plant room, shower & wc, and changing area) and a gym / games area (total footprint over 110m2). The outbuilding has a mansard type roof, with shallow pitches in the centre and steeper pitches on either side (see drawings). The central ridge-line is at height 4.0m.
The property is a two-storey semi-detached house, with a hipped main roof. The application was for various proposed works, including a hip-to-gable roof extension, a large rear dormer, and a part two-storey / part single-storey rear extension. The two-storey part of the proposed rear extension would have a crown roof, with a flat area in the centre and pitches on the sides. When viewing the drawings on the Council's website, this crown roof appears to be shown on the proposed roof plan, but not on the proposed elevations. However, the appeal decision notice refers to drawing "13B", so it appears that at least some of the drawings on the Council's website have been superseded, possibly to correct this discrepancy.
The property is a two-storey end-of-terrace house with a gable-end main roof. The property has previously been extended with a two-storey side extension, which is significantly set-back from the main front building line. The gable-end roof of the two-storey side extension joins onto the main gable-end roof, with the eaves and ridge-line of the former at a similar level to the eaves and ridge-line of the latter. The application was for a proposed rear dormer on the main rear roof (i.e. the rear roof of the original part of the house).
The property is a two-storey semi-detached house. The application was for a proposed single storey rear extension, a hip-to-gable roof extension, the erection of a rear dormer, and the installation of two front rooflights.
The property is a two-storey detached house set within very considerable grounds, and situated within a conservation area. The south (south-east) elevation is the principal elevation, and does not front a highway (it faces a highway at a significant angle and at a significant distance). The application included a proposed two-storey front extension, which would more than triple the volume of the house, and with a roof that would join onto the roof of the main house.
The property is a two-storey detached house set within considerable grounds. The application was for a proposed part two-storey / part single-storey rear extension, with a roof that would join onto the roof of the main house.
The property is a detached house, and the application was for a proposed outbuilding in the rear garden. The proposed outbuilding would be located at least 2m from the boundaries, albeit as a result of a change in the boundary line that was also proposed by this application. The proposed outbuilding would have a crown type roof, with a pitch on either side and a flat area on top (see drawings). The flat roof would be at height 3.95m.
The property has an existing front garden that slopes down significantly from the highway down to the front of the house. The application included the proposed infill of this front garden area to form a raised area of hardstanding at the same level as the highway.
The application site is a pair of semi-detached houses. The application included the proposed insertion of a new front door, which would extend across the existing boundary between the two houses to create a single combined entrance, in connection with the deconversion of the two houses into a single house.
The property is a two-storey end-of-terrace house, with a hipped main roof. The application was for a proposed hip-to-gable roof extension, a rear dormer, and three front rooflights. The proposed rear dormer would be set back by more than 20cm from the outer edge of the section of the roof overhanging the rear wall of the house, but less than 20cm from the point where the vertical plane of this wall meets the slope of the roof.