Re: Do outbuildings have permitted development rights for enlargement? - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

My initial thoughts would be that once the outbuilding is joined to the host dwelling, this would form an extension to the host dwelling, and would therefore benefit from Part A. However, I would not expect that they could enlarge the former outbuilding, as I assume any enlargement would extend further than 3m/4m from the original dwelling. Class E could no longer by applied to the former outbuilding as it would no longer be an outbuilding but rather part of the host dwelling. If you have specific concerns regarding the potential for alteration that would adversly affect the amenity of the neighbours then depending on the wording of the condition I would think it would meet the reasonableness tests.

Thanks for the reply. Do you think that the outbuilding could be extended before it was attached to the main house though? If it can be extended or altered under pd before being attached to the main house I would query whether a condition restricting enlargements or alterations after it has been attached is reasonable as it would be removing the right to make alterations which could in theory be undertaken before the planning permission is implemented. If the outbuilding wasnt already there it would be much simpler but as it is existing its not as clear.

As an agent I would advise the client that as it is an outbuilding it would be treated as Class E development, and could therefore be extended (not to adjoin host dwelling) under Class E. You haven't provided details of its location (i.e. its proximity to the boundary) or height as these may well restrict what can be achieved with the outbuilding without requiring planning consent. I agree with Leigh that once it is linked to the host dwelling it no longer falls under Class E then the reasonableness tests would probably be met and a suitably worded condition could be added. A dormer would normally serve first floor and as such is outside of Class E anyway as this only permits one storey.

Class E allows for maintenance, improvement or alteration of outbuildings. It might be argued that 'alteration' allows extension/enlargement but to my mind the fact that the word 'enlargement' is absent (compare with Classes A and B, where it is present) means that extensions are excluded from Class E. So I would suggest that extensions to outbuildings are not permitted development. Whether Class A applies once the outbuilding is linked to the house is trickier. I would agree that as a rule of thumb it should be expected that Class A will apply. But there are always grey areas; e.g. what if your two-storey building is 10 metres from the house and is subsequently linked to the house by a narrow covered walkway with external-type doors at each end? Are alterations to and even enlargements of the building then to be covered by Class A? Another issue is that Class E only applies to buildings that are 'incidental to the enjoyment of a dwellinghouse as such.' There is plenty of precedent to indicate that 'incidental' does not include bedrooms among other things. You mention that the outbuilding you are looking at includes 'accommodation' so this might be relevant. I assume I'm not alone in thinking that these things should be much simpler?!

I agree Nick, it seems that absent words or ambiguous phrases have made this statutory document more confusing than the last. I have always advised clients to apply for a CLOPD as the Act has numerous holes and ambiguities in it. It's a shame that we are all left with uncertainty and trying to interpret a document that should be clear.

Nick, thanks for your reply. The outbuilding is currently a garage on the ground floor with storage above. Definitely two storey rather than storage in the roofspace so I would say this is incidental to the main house so based on your response Class E rights would apply. Once joined my view would be that it would benefit from Class A rights. On that basis does this mean that in order to be considered reasonable any condition restricting pd could only refer to enlargements rather than alterations (as alterations would be pd now) which is unfortunate.