Permitted Development-Infill extension
Posted 08 April 2011 - 09:53 AM
Rev E.jpg 62.53K 18 downloads
Rev E-2.jpg 14.09K 17 downloads
Posted 08 April 2011 - 12:42 PM
The rules are clear in that it's the rear of the original house not the extended house that matter. There is another more typical example here...
I don't believe the planners have any discression once you told them in writing it's over 3m. The planning office could find itself in court subject to judicial review if a neighbour decided to make an issue of it. Had you put 3m on the diagram I doubt they would have checked.
I doubt planning permission would be refused but if worried about that perhaps you could render the walls and remeasure?
Posted 08 April 2011 - 01:50 PM
Would that not open up a whole new can of worms?
Posted 08 April 2011 - 01:58 PM
Edited by nickam, 08 April 2011 - 01:59 PM.
Posted 08 April 2011 - 03:14 PM
The Inspector stated the following:
â€œâ€œThe 2008 amendments to GPDO Part 1 adopted an impact-based approach. I believe that the 3 metre maximum projection from the rear wall of the dwellinghouse mentioned in the amendments was intended to refer to the main body of the extension to be permitted and that it is not intended that the projection of the eaves and gutters should normally be taken into account. In most circumstances, the projection of the eaves and gutters would make little, if any, significant difference to the impact of the extension under consideration. In the appeal case, there is nothing out of the ordinary about the eaves and gutters that suggest to me that they have any effect on the impact of the proposed extension. I therefore conclude, as a matter of fact and degree, that the projection due to the eaves and gutters of the proposed extension is de minimis and should be disregarded in assessing the projection of the proposed extension from the rear wall of the existing dwellinghouse. I accept that the eaves and gutters here project more than was the case in the Halifax example referred to by the Council (Ref: APP/A4710/X/09/2103056) but not to the extent that I believe that a different approach to that adopted by the Inspector in that case is warranted.â€
You could also ask them to reconsider the CLD or you will appeal the refusal on the grounds that the 16mm excess is "de minimis" as above.
Edited by temp, 08 April 2011 - 03:15 PM.