Height of extensions under Class A - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

Interesting point. As a planning agent I have always submitted these types of applications for consent as I would consider that under A.1e(ii) that it exceeds 4 metres in height. Whilst it may conform with Class G the proposed development, in my opinion, has to conform will all Classes that the proposed development falls under and the proposed chimney exceeds the 4 metre height imposed under Class A

Hi David, There have been a number of appeal decisions that have dealt with the interaction between Class G and other Classes. For example, in the appeal decision "APP/H1705/X/11/2157012", the applicant proposed a single storey extension, the roof of which would contain a chimney that would project to a level approx 0.7m higher than the main ridge-line of the house. The Inspector rejected the argument that the proposals would be contrary to limitation A.1(b) for the following reasons: "Applying [the DCLG “Technical Guidance”], while the extension excluding the chimney would be permitted under Class A, the chimney would be permitted under Class G. In this regard it is irrelevant whether or not the appellant requested the extension to be considered under Part G as well as Part A. ... To take the opposite view would mean that a certificate could not be issued in respect of the extension even though it is clear that the extension without the chimney would be permitted under Class A and the chimney would be permitted under Class G and that there could therefore be no impact-based objection to the development as a whole. Indeed, even under the Council’s interpretation of permitted development rights the extension could be constructed and the chimney added immediately afterwards, all lawfully. To refuse a LDC in those circumstances would be completely contrary to the approach in the Technical Guidance." http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/ViewCase.asp?caseid=2157012&coid=59856 Thanks, Steve

Thanks Steve. On this basis would you therefore agree that if a proposal with a chimney which exceeds the 4 m height has been submitted under the new prior approval process (rather than an LDC) then the same would apply? Presumably in order to qualify for the prior approval process they would need to make sure their proposal complies with all parts of the GPDO otherwise planning consent would be required. Cheers

Hi David, Although the appeal decision in my post above deals with a chimney on a Class A extension in relation to limitation A.1(b), rather than limitation A.1(e), I do think the principle is the same. Furthermore, a similar interpretation has been supported by other appeal decisions that have dealt with a flue and SVP on a Class B extension in relation to limitation B.1(d). For the new notification and prior approval process, in my opinion the lowest risk option for LPAs is to assess the proposed development only against condition A.4, rather than against all of the limitations and conditions of Part 1 Class A. In other words, if a developer submits a notification and the LPA believes that the proposed development would not comply with at least one of the other limitations or conditions of Part 1 Class A, then in my opinion the lowest risk option for the LPA would be to process the notification as normal (e.g. if no objections are received, to confirm that prior approval is not required, etc), rather than deciding that the information provided by the developer does not constitute a notification. For info, the "Part 1 of the GPDO - 2013 Amendments - Guide (FULL VERSION)" document on my website contains information about the conclusions from a number of appeal decisions relating to the notification and prior approval processes under other Parts of the GPDO. Of these, there are 5 appeal decisions that support the above approach versus 2 appeal decisions that contradict the above approach. Thanks, Steve

Thanks again Steve.

Just to add my 2p's worth to the conversation. Whilst the sizes indicated in Part 1 Class A A1(e) and (ee) are relevant for the simplified permissions system, the rest of Part 1 Class A applies also, so ridge height below that of host house, and eaves levels also apply. It is an anomaly of the regulations that if no-one complains, and the case officer is not given the opportunity to feed back, the Council could give the owner (developer) the wrong impression that a 7m deep by 4m high extension to a 3.5 m high bungalow is compliant, where it is not. We need to ensure ‘decision’ letters are phrased in such away that alerts developers to their other obligations.

Hi all, Further to Philip's post, for those LPAs that do decide to assess the proposed development only against condition A.4 (rather than against all of the limitations and conditions of Part 1 Class A), below is my suggested informative for the decision notice: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "This written notice indicates that the proposed development would comply with condition A.4 of Schedule 2 Part 1 Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended by SI 2008 No. 2362 and SI 2013 No. 1101). It is important to note that this written notice doesn’t indicate whether or not the proposed development would comply with any of the other limitations or conditions of Schedule 2 Part 1 Class A. If you want confirmation that the proposed development would be lawful (e.g. on the basis that it would comply with all of the limitations and conditions of Schedule 2 Part 1 Class A), then you should submit an (optional) application to the local planning authority for a Lawful Development Certificate (LDC)." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks, Steve