Casebook: Appeal Case - Householder development - Patio permitted development claim struck out

An enforcement notice requiring the removal of raised timber decking and a patio at a house in West Yorkshire has been upheld despite the appellant's claims that the structure was permitted development.

The structure measured 3.3m by 3.3m with 1m high balustrades and a wooden skirt about 50cm deep on two sides. It had been assembled on site and was used as a sitting-out area bolted to the rear steps of the house.

The inspector agreed that it had involved a building operation. In his opinion, it was not permitted by class F, part 1, schedule 2 of the General Permitted Development Order 1995 because it comprised a structure or erection and not the formation of a hard surface.

In deciding whether the patio formed an extension to the house permitted under class A, the inspector noted that the rear garden faced onto a path that comprised a highway along which people could pass. It could not be permitted under class A because it was closer to this highway than the nearest part of the original house, he reasoned. Neither was it permitted under part E because its cubic capacity exceeded the 10m3 limit, he held.

DCS No: 100039809; Inspector: David Rusdale; Hearing.


Have you registered with us yet?

Register now to enjoy more articles and free email bulletins

Sign up now
Already registered?
Sign in

Join the conversation with PlanningResource on social media

Follow Us:
Planning Jobs