Successful appeal dealing with sloping land and permitted development rights for outbuilding

The central issue of the appeal concerned the interpretation of Article 3, Schedule 2, Part 1, Class E of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 as amended (GDPO) which grants planning permission for the provision within the curtilage of the dwelling house of any building or enclosure for a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house. Paragraph E.1.(h) of the GDPO states that the development is not permitted if it would include the construction or provision of a verandah, balcony or raised platform. It is the definition of ‘raised platform’ which this decision helpfully considers. 

In the circumstances of this matter before the Inspectorate the appeal related to the development of an outbuilding which was incidental to the enjoyment of the main dwelling house comprising a garden room and an office. The outbuilding was to be constructed on sloping land and partly spanning a boat dock in the bank of the River Thames, with the internal floor at ground level and at the end of the building furthest from the river with access to the building provided at that point. The river end would be substantially elevated across the boat dock, where steps lead to an external landing area outside providing a further access to the building.

The Council contended that as the internal floor would be at ground level at the end of the building furthest from the river with access to the building provided at that point, the river end would be substantially elevated across the boat dock, where steps would lead to an external landing area outside a further access to the building, creating a ‘raised platform’ and therefore the proposal was excluded from the benefit of the rights afforded by the GDPO. It was both the landing at the top of the external steps on the river end and the whole of the building itself which the Council considered were raised platforms which thus would take it outside of the limitations of Class E.

The Inspector accepted the Appellant’s arguments and confirmed that the external landing is an integral part of the building and did not amount to a “platform”. Regardless, the Inspector in his decision then considered the ”Permitted development rights for householders – Technical Guidance” and whether even if the building and/or landing were a platform whether it was raised (if it did constitute a “raised platform” it would be outside of the relevant permitted development right). He found that ‘height’ should be interpreted as the height measured from ground level and, where that ground level is not uniform, as was the case in this instance, then the ground level is the highest part of the surface of the ground next to the building. So applied to this appeal case where the ground sloped and the steps were at the lowest part of the slope up to the building, the height of any platform was taken to be from the ground at the other end of the building where it was nearly flush with the ground and so did not amount to being “raised” (being defined as being more than 0.3m above ground level). 

Helpfully, the Inspectorate considered the height of any raised platform in this case to conclude that the platform should also be measured from the highest part of the ground adjacent to the building and states at paragraph 10 that:

“As the relevant Technical Guidance refers to the ‘building’, and the interpretation of ‘height’ and ‘raised’ are within the General Issues section, rather than being particular to the interpretation of Class E, or paragraph E.1.(h), I find that the height of any raised platform in this case should also be measured from the highest part of the ground adjacent to the building. That height would not be exceeded by any part of the proposal that could be deemed a raised platform.” 

This led to the conclusion that the height of any raised platform in this case should also be measured from the highest part of the ground adjacent to the building, and therefore that the proposal would benefit from the planning rights granted by the GPDO. The Certificate of Proposed Lawful Development was therefore granted. Ahead of proceeding with any development authorised by permitted development rights that does not need a prior approval it can often be sensible to obtain a Certificate of Proposed Lawful Development to avoid any enforcement risk at a later date, and be of comfort to any purchaser of the property or bank on re-financing. 

Alex Ground is a partner in the real estate, planning and construction team. She advises on all aspects of planning, highways and compulsory purchase including planning applications, appeals, negotiating s106 agreements, challenges and enforcement.