A judge’s decision that a basement development cannot be carried out under permitted development rights (PDRs) “makes a nonsense” of the PDR regime, a planning lawyer has claimed.
Carl Dyer, partner at Irwin Mitchell, said that the case “has ‘appeal’ written all over it”.
Last week, the court quashed Camden Council’s decision to issue a lawful development certificate to James Ireland in respect of the planned single-storey basement at 24 Quadrant Grove, NW5.
Cranston J upheld a challenge by neighbour Michael Eatherley, of number 26, finding that the proposal involved a substantial engineering operation not covered by Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015.
Dyer said that the judge found that council should have asked itself whether the engineering operations involved were sufficiently serious to constitute a separate operation beyond the permitted creation of the basement space.
He said: “If councils are to have to do that, (i) the answer will always be ‘yes’, and (ii) therefore members will always be able to say ‘no’ to any basement extensions – and the judge will have removed a PDR that people have enjoyed for decades.
“We urgently need an appeal, because this judgment makes a nonsense not just of the basement PDR, but also of several others. If you have to look at the engineering operations for basements as to whether they are a separate operation beyond creating the basement space, then why not above-ground extensions also?
“There are PDRs to extend homes. Do these not cover the ‘separate engineering operation’ of digging out a hole for their foundations? I don’t know; and neither does anyone else if this judgment stands.”
• To send feedback, e-mail jess.harrold@estatesgazette.com or tweet @jessharrold or @estatesgazette
