Taking the Michael

An appellant has convinced an inspector that a side extension and a rear extension to his house in north London are permitted development because there would be a 5mm gap between them (DCS Number 400-016-088).

The inspector accepted that if the two components were joined the proposal would fail to comply with subparagraph (j) (iii) in paragraph A.1 of Class A, Part 1, Schedule 2 to the GPDO as it would be more than half the width of the house.

The council contended that it would not be possible to construct the proposal without bridging the gap. The inspector acknowledged that if the development was constructed with the gap bridged it would not be permitted development. He reasoned, however, that the proposal indicated that there would be a gap, and the practicalities of constructing the proposal were not a matter for him to consider.

Five millimetres?! This appellant is having a laugh.

The following DCP section is relevant: 4.3421

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.