Permitted development rights: Class A.

[tony1851]

For those interested, an important appeal case has recently been heard in the High Court (Hilton v DCLG). The result completely overturns accepted guidance on what constitutes "the enlarged part of the dwelling house".

Up until now, it was rarely possible to build an extension on an extension under permitted development rights, because the whole work (ie proposed extension plus pre-existing extension) would be considered as a new development requiring planning pemission.
This was confirmed in the latest edition of the Technical Guidance issued by DCLG.

Now, however, the court has ruled that "the enlarged part of the dwelling house" only refers to the proposed extension, regardless of any previous extension. This has considerable ramifications, in that it is now possible to 'leap-frog' extensions; a house holder could theoretically build a series of large extensions, one after the other.

DCLG will either be required to alter its guidance on this matter, or push through new legislation to overturn the judgment. As Parliament seems to have more important matters to attend to at the moment, this seems unlikely in the near future.

 

[Nakajo]

Wow, and no leave to appeal; thanks for the 'heads up'

 

[garyo]

Would that also redefine the 'original dwelling' from the point the of view of making a rear extension after a side extension and having the rear running the full width of the building?

 

[Nakajo]

I think it might, but I've not read the judgment (and I probably wouldnt understand it anyway ). It's likely to be a short-lived situation, as the DCLG will look to make legislative change. But then again, that might prove difficult in the apparent absence of government.

 

[^woody^]

Would that also redefine the 'original dwelling' from the point the of view of making a rear extension after a side extension and having the rear running the full width of the building?

The judgement states that the "original dwelling" is that which is there already at the time the permitted development takes place - ie including any extensions, and is not the original dwelling as built.

 

[Nakajo]

That's potentially pretty explosive, right?

 

[tony1851]

could well be!

 

[cjard]

Anyone got a transcript of the case? I haven't been able to find one, only third party references to its contents, but after reading the news article on planning jungle, I was left wondering whether the judge's intention was to compartmentalise a house into two elements:

1) all that existed at the time an extension under class A was proposed and
2) the complete and sole current extension being built under class A

Or into three elements:

1) the original house, as built or as standing at the introduction of the tcpa 1947
2) any enlargements permitted by way of approved planning consent
3) any enlargements permitted under class a (which are still subjected to the rules regarding merged enlargements needing to be within PD limits)


If it was the former, you could arrive at the ludicrous situation of a house extension that just keeps growing, as each successive addition redefines relative limits such as "no more than 50% of the area around the original house", which could otherwise keep it in check

If it was the latter, then Hilton gets his wraparound extension purely by dint of the fact that part of it wasn't PD, and we don't end up wih a pigsty of ad hoc extensions nationwide..

So what did the case actually say?

 

[napoleondynamite]

It's just one judgement. I would imagine 99% of councils will continue to follow Government's technical guidance document. If they started following this Judge's approach it would be chaos.

Definitions of terms should be set out within the GPDO, not in the technical guidance. Maybe the next time is is updated they will chuck a few more in.

 

[tony1851]

Napoleon - I think you've missed the point here. If 99% of councils follow the Technical Guidance on this point, issued by DCLG, they would be wrong because that judgement by the High Court is now law. Any refusal would be open to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate, and if that was turned down, the applicant would have good grounds for costs in any subsequent legal action.
This will pertain unless either DCLG amends its guidance to comply with the judgement (unlikely because it would open the floodgates) or alternatively seeks to change the GDPO through Parliament. Note that the court refused leave to appeal, so it could be some time before DCLG catch up with this. In the meantime, this would be a golden opportunity for householders planning to extend.

 

[Nakajo]

Exactly

 

[napoleondynamite]

All noted but I'm pretty sure most councils will continue to follow the technical guidance. It's a current Government document therefore I would imagine a council would be unlikely to lose costs at appeal following the approach set out within it. It would not be 'unreasonable' to do so. They might lose the appeal, but losing costs would be unlikely IMHO.

 

[^woody^]

The council's legal advisors will have given the planners advice on the impact of the judgement (or should have/would be obliged to have), and the planners will base their decisions on that. It would be unreasonable to blindly follow the Technical Document when it clearly has been superceded by precedent with no chance of appeal. To waste resources on a case which can't be won is unreasonable, and would therefore result in a costs liability.

 

[napoleondynamite]

To be fair, if a LDC is refused, there won't be a decision from the Inspectorate for about 6 months, and the situation may be clarified by Government in the meantime. I do think councils will continue to follow the technical guidance; if any council decisions emerge which follow the approach set out in the judgement maybe this would be a good place to post a link to the application and decision.

 

[Nakajo]

No. They won't. And in the event that legislation is subsequently amended, it would not apply retrospectively.