最近在网上发现这个， 看谁有用，具体细节要自己研究看能不能适用！
地址如下
http://planningjungle.com/wp-content/uploads/Part-1-of-the-GPDO-The-10-Worst-Permitted-Development-Loopholes.pdf
我贴出来
顺便问下
１： 如果现在房子已经有planning permittion, 如果按照permitted development 继续往房顶改成loft
可不可以？还要做出修改么？
２： 如果之前的planning permittion快到期了，从新申请麻烦不？
如果一时半会开不了工， 能不能开一部分，然后搁置， 还是有什么限制一定要在多久之内完成，因为不想再去申请一遍。
原文件text
Planning Jungle Limited
Part 1 of the GPDO - The 10 Worst Permitted Development Loopholes
Last updated: October 2014 (regular updates not required)
Introduction:
This is one of a number of documents produced by Planning Jungle Limited (www.planningjungle.com). This company provides one of the most
comprehensive resources available relating to householder permitted development legislation, and one of the only sources of consolidated
versions of planning secondary legislation.
About this document:
This document highlights some of the loopholes within Part 1 of the GPDO.
This document was first produced in November 2011, with the aim of encouraging the government to rewrite this legislation. The updates to this
document since November 2011 have been relatively minor.
This document is accessible by anyone, including people who are not members of the Planning Jungle website. As such, you are welcome to
distribute this document in its original form (i.e. without alterations).
Important Disclaimer:
The following “Important Disclaimer” is applicable to all of the documents produced by Planning Jungle Limited:
“The information provided by Planning Jungle Limited (including the documents produced by Planning Jungle Limited and the material on the
website www.planningjungle.com) is for general information purposes only. Such information does not constitute legal or other professional
advice, and must not be relied on as such. While we endeavour to keep such information up-to-date and correct, we make no representations or
warranties of any kind about the completeness, accuracy, or suitability of such information. Any reliance you place on such information is
therefore strictly at your own risk. In no event will we be liable for any loss or damage that may arise out of your reliance on such information.”
第十名 unlimited front extension
Note
Why is this possible … ?
• It’s simply a mistake in the drafting of the legislation. The legislation specifies limits for side extensions (which are ruled out on Article 1(5) land)
and specifies limits for rear extensions. It’s clear from the background consultation documents that the intention was to rule out front extensions
altogether. However, the wording of the legislation only rules out front extensions where the principal elevation fronts a highway. It appears that
central government simply didn’t think of the scenario where the principal elevation doesn’t front a highway - for example on a rural property which
either faces away from the highway or is significantly set-back from the highway.
Is there really no limit to the size of such front extensions … ?
• Well, the front extension must remain within the “curtilage” of the property (and not within 2m of the boundary if the height of its eaves exceeds 3m),
it can’t result in more than 50% of the original garden being covered by buildings, and its eaves and ridge-line can’t be higher than the eaves and
ridge-line of the main building.
• However, these are really only secondary restrictions. For many properties where the principal elevation doesn’t front a highway, the legislation
does not impose any meaningful restriction on the size of a front extension. For example, in the appeal decision APP/Y3615/X/10/2142515, which
was allowed on 27/04/2011, the proposed front extension had forward projection 14m and would more than triple the footprint of the original house!
• It should also be noted that the DCLG “Technical Guidance” document sets out that if the roof of such a front extension doesn’t contain a dormer
window (or similar), then Class B does not apply, meaning that the front extension would not be subject to the 40m3 and 50m3 volume limits.
Furthermore, this introduces the significant contradiction that even though it’s not possible on Article 1(5) land to erect any form of Class B roof
extension, it’s possible to attach a massive additional roof structure to the main front roof slope (as shown by the example on the previous page).
• If the roof of such a front extension does contain a dormer window (or similar), then Class B does apply, including the volume limits and the
restriction against Article 1(5) land. In such a case, it’s also important to note that the front extension might be contrary to limitation B.2(b)(ii).
When was this mistake first recognised … ?
• This was one of a number of issues that I emailed to DCLG in November 2008, 1 month after the new legislation came into force.
• The DCLG “Informal Views from Communities and Local Government”, which was published in December 2008, recognised this issue. However,
this document appeared to downplay the issue (rather than acknowledge that a mistake had been made) by stating that “development to a principal
elevation that does not front a highway would be subject to the eaves height limit and the overall 50% limit on development within the curtilage”.
• This loophole has also been highlighted by a number of appeal decisions which have been allowed by government Inspectors. More information is
contained within the “Part 1 of the GPDO - GENERAL Appeal Decisions” document on www.planningjungle.com.
What is being done to address this loophole … ?
• As of October 2014, this loophole was first recognised almost 6 years ago, and has still not been addressed.
