Permitted development rights: Class A.
- Thread starter tony1851
- Start date
Sponsored Links
Does this mean that you can extend 6m from the rear wall of the existing single storey extension? Or would you still have to extend 6m from the rear wall of the original building (as it stood on 1948)?
My existing single storey extension has a depth of 3.5m and was built in in 2003.
My existing single storey extension has a depth of 3.5m and was built in in 2003.
That's the law as it stands at the moment, ie extending up to 6m from the existing extension.
For a terraced house? Wow...
Thank you tony. I might have to submit another application for prior approval then.
Sponsored Links
But you would have to be prepared to argue the case with your local planning people and if necessary appeal; many councils are behind the door on Planning rules.
And it maybe that the government moves soon to close this loophole.
Thanks for the heads up. Knowing how strict the council in my borough are, I'm definitely expecting it to go into appeals. Hopefully, the government doesn't introduce a change to the GPDO legislation anytime soon.
I will talk to my architect and see what he has to say.
Last edited:
What I meant to say was a change to the legislation not DCLG guidance. Edited my post, thanks garyo.
- Joined
- 19 Apr 2012
- Messages
- 151
- Reaction score
- 30
- Country
Hi all-
We now have an update on this one.
Government has (finally) taken action and published an amendment to the GPDO which comes in to force tomorrow. Effectively, I think the result of the amendment is that the proposed extension has to be considered both in isolation, and as a resultant structure in combination with any previous extension which the extension adjoins. So the 'loophole' discussed above will not be available to exploit after today.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2017/391/contents/made
As the technical guidance has not been updated, the guidance will now conflict with the legislation, until the guidance is updated.
This explanatory note is useful:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2017/391/pdfs/uksiem_20170391_en.pdf
Amendments relating to the enlargement of a dwellinghouse
7.2 Government’s intention is to give householders freedom to enlarge their properties within clear limitations. The householder permitted development rights in Class A of Part 1 of the General Permitted Development Order balance the freedom for householders to develop their properties to meet their changing needs with the rights of neighbours to be heard where larger developments are proposed. The limitations contained in Class A are intended to ensure that larger developments which could have more significant impacts are considered at a local level through the planning application process.
7.3 The decision in Hilton, referred to in paragraph 4.4 above, would allow a total enlarged space to be created which would not have been permitted under Class A as a
single development. For example, it would allow a single storey extension to be joined to an existing two storey extension (or vice versa), creating a total enlargement which would not have been permitted under Class A as a single extension. It would also allow an existing extension which exceeds the limitations contained in Class A to
be further enlarged. The amendments contained in Article 3 remove such developments from the scope of permitted development rights. This does not mean that such larger spaces cannot be developed. It simply means that a planning application will be required so that local impacts can be considered.
7.4 Paragraphs A.1(c) and (d) of Class A use the phrase ‘the part of the dwellinghouse enlarged’ to refer to the development proposed under Class A. The court’s definition
of ‘enlarged part’ is consistent with these paragraphs. Consequently the Amendment Order does not change the court’s definition, but instead makes the consequential amendments outlined above. The technical guidance will be updated to reflect this definition together with the consequential amendments contained in Article 3.
We now have an update on this one.
Government has (finally) taken action and published an amendment to the GPDO which comes in to force tomorrow. Effectively, I think the result of the amendment is that the proposed extension has to be considered both in isolation, and as a resultant structure in combination with any previous extension which the extension adjoins. So the 'loophole' discussed above will not be available to exploit after today.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2017/391/contents/made
As the technical guidance has not been updated, the guidance will now conflict with the legislation, until the guidance is updated.
This explanatory note is useful:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2017/391/pdfs/uksiem_20170391_en.pdf
Amendments relating to the enlargement of a dwellinghouse
7.2 Government’s intention is to give householders freedom to enlarge their properties within clear limitations. The householder permitted development rights in Class A of Part 1 of the General Permitted Development Order balance the freedom for householders to develop their properties to meet their changing needs with the rights of neighbours to be heard where larger developments are proposed. The limitations contained in Class A are intended to ensure that larger developments which could have more significant impacts are considered at a local level through the planning application process.
7.3 The decision in Hilton, referred to in paragraph 4.4 above, would allow a total enlarged space to be created which would not have been permitted under Class A as a
single development. For example, it would allow a single storey extension to be joined to an existing two storey extension (or vice versa), creating a total enlargement which would not have been permitted under Class A as a single extension. It would also allow an existing extension which exceeds the limitations contained in Class A to
be further enlarged. The amendments contained in Article 3 remove such developments from the scope of permitted development rights. This does not mean that such larger spaces cannot be developed. It simply means that a planning application will be required so that local impacts can be considered.
7.4 Paragraphs A.1(c) and (d) of Class A use the phrase ‘the part of the dwellinghouse enlarged’ to refer to the development proposed under Class A. The court’s definition
of ‘enlarged part’ is consistent with these paragraphs. Consequently the Amendment Order does not change the court’s definition, but instead makes the consequential amendments outlined above. The technical guidance will be updated to reflect this definition together with the consequential amendments contained in Article 3.
In what way have they misunderstood it?
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
Sponsored Links
Similar threads
