Planning Lawyer Questions Decision To Not Permit Basement Being Built

Specialist planning lawyer speaks out over a judge’s decision to ban a basement being built under permitted development rights (PDR).

Expert planning lawyer at law firm Irwin Mitchell, Carl Dyer, said that the case has ‘appeal written all over it.’ 

Earlier last week, the judge suppressed Camden Council’s decision to issue a lawful development to James Ireland in regards to the planned single-storey basement at 24 Quadrant Grove, NW5.

Judge 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.

Planning expert, Carl Dyer at Irwin Mitchell, said:

Expert Opinion

"The General Permitted Development Order grants planning permission (as permitted development) for the enlargement of dwelling houses, including by building a basement. The claimant argued that that permitted development right did not extend to the engineering works involved in digging out the basement and (if necessary) supporting the neighbouring properties. Desperate or what? You can’t build a basement without digging out material and supporting what’s above it. So either the GPDO covers this, or it’s meaningless.

“Despite that, the Judge found that the council should have asked itself: “were these engineering operations sufficiently serious to constitute a separate operation beyond the permitted creation of the space?”. 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 PD right that people have enjoyed for decades.

“This decision has “Appeal” written all over it.

"We urgently need an appeal, because this judgement makes nonsense - not just of the basement PD, 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 PD rights for works to roofs. Do these not cover the “separate engineering operation” of building a scaffold around the building to access the roof, or over the building to make the works rain proof while they take place? There are PD rights 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 judgement stands." Carl Dyer - Partner