Do chimneys form part of the principle elevation?

[Randomiser]

This is a seemingly dull and techy question, but potentially material to anyone wanting to do a permitted development side extension.

 

Let's take a simple example of a house which in plan is otherwise square but with a chimney on the left hand side.  Would the principal elevation ignore the chimney as on the left or take it in to account as on the right?

 

 

Any thoughts or experience much appreciated.

 

 

 

Edited October 26, 2019 by Randomiser

[PeterW]

It’s the one on the left 

 

And this may help you

 

https://planningjungle.com/wp-content/uploads/Part-1-of-the-GPDO-Visual-Guide-FREE-VERSION.pdf

[bassanclan]

Another vote for the left.

If you were to build a tiny extension between the chimney breast and the red dotted line it would be a side extension, not an extension in front of the principal elevation

[Randomiser]

7 minutes ago, PeterW said:

It’s the one on the left 

 

And this may help you

 

https://planningjungle.com/wp-content/uploads/Part-1-of-the-GPDO-Visual-Guide-FREE-VERSION.pdf

Thanks for the link, that is a helpful guide.

 

I very much hope it is the one on the left, but I am struggling to find anything that actually states this and indeed, unless I am missing it, the guide you linked to doesn't cover this specific point.  I have looked at the Technical Guidance for Householders on PD and can't find anything in that, it only shows examples with bay windows but nothing on chimneys.  Do you know where I can find something that cover this specific point?

[PeterW]

Ok - in terms of Principle Elevation definition, it is determined by the “elevation” that contains the main features - the chimney in your picture is not contained in the elevation itself. 
 

Given it is probably only 2 bricks wide at most, it would be challenging to see how it could even be included in any decision, and none of the guidance refers to anything behind the line of the principle elevation, other than where a property is a “L” or “T” shape, or where bay windows exist (which are specifically called out in the guidance)

 

Why are you concerned ..? 

 

 

[Oz07]

I've used permitted development at mine with the garage and didn't consider the chimney for a second! I'd have thought any reasonable person would discount it but can see why you ask I suppose.

[Randomiser]

5 hours ago, PeterW said:

Ok - in terms of Principle Elevation definition, it is determined by the “elevation” that contains the main features - the chimney in your picture is not contained in the elevation itself. 
 

Given it is probably only 2 bricks wide at most, it would be challenging to see how it could even be included in any decision, and none of the guidance refers to anything behind the line of the principle elevation, other than where a property is a “L” or “T” shape, or where bay windows exist (which are specifically called out in the guidance)

 

Why are you concerned ..? 

 

 

I guess no concern other than the obvious, that a PD side extension could be limited to coming as far forward as the front of the chimney and not be allowed to come to the front of the house.  If I were to go ahead with this I would likely be upsetting the planners by pushing hard on the bounds of PD, so I could see a scenario where an unhappy planning officer is happy to have found a way to frustrate the scheme.

[PeterW]

Highly unlikely as unless that’s a massive chimney, a reasonable person would say it’s the front wall...

 

Have you had a run in with them previously ..?

[Mr Punter]

I can see no reason why the left side would be the principal elevation unless the building is effectively 'side on' to the red dotted line you have drawn and the wall abutting the dotted line is a secondary or flank wall.

[Randomiser]

I am not a lawyer, but I have spent a lot of time in my work looking at and agreeing complicated commercial contracts, so I feel reasonably comfortable reading legal documents, therefore unable to find something that gives a simple description I have had a look The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015.

 

There is nothing I can see which is helpful in the definitions.  In Schedule 2, Part 1 A.1 and A.1 (e) it states

"Development is not permitted by Class A if -

…(e) the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would extend beyond a wall which -
(I) forms the principal elevation of the original dwellinghouse; or

(ii) fronts a highway and forms a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse;..."

 

I read this to say that the principal or side elevations that you cannot go in front of are formed by walls.  But there is no definition of a wall in the legislation.  I have therefore looked in other parts of the legislation to see if there is any clue as to whether a chimney would be considered part of a wall.

 

There is no mention of chimneys in A., however, G. is a short section on chimneys, flues, soil and vent pipes.  I think there are two relevant points in G.1 and G.1 (c), this states

"Development is not permitted by Class G if -

…(c) in the case of a dwellinghouse on article 2(3) land, the chimney, flue or soil and vent pipe would be installed on a wall or roof slope which -

(I) fronts a highway, and

(ii) forms either the principal elevation or a side elevation of the dwellinghouse."

 

First, the chimney is described as being "installed on a wall".  If something is installed on a wall it seems hard to argue that the thing on the wall is part of the wall itself.  A chimney is part of a list including pipes, I find it hard to see how anyone could argue a pipe is part of the wall to which it is attached.  There is no mention of what the chimney is made of, so the fact it is made of brick does not appear to be a factor.

 

Second, the Act is set up to exclude what is not permitted development and by definition anything else is permitted development.  The exclusion in G. (c) relates only to article 2(3) land which is basically Conservation Area, AONB, etc.  This means that anywhere that is not article 2(3) land it is permitted development to install a chimney on to the principle elevation of a dwellinghouse.  We already know that in A.1 (e) an enlarged part of a dwellinghouse cannot be permitted development if it is in front of the wall forming the principal elevation.  The Act say you cannot enlarge the dwellinghouse in front of the principal elevation, but you can add a chimney, flue, etc. to the principal elevation if you are not on article 2(3) land.  That suggests to me that the chimney, flue, etc. can't be considered an enlargement of the dwellinghouse and therefore can't be part of the wall forming the principal elevation.

 

After all that my conclusion is that the answer must be that the Chimney in the example at the top of this thread would not be used to determine the principal elevation and the diagram on the left hand side would be correct.

 

Does anyone think I have got this wrong?

 

[PeterW]

Part G of that tends to refer to twin wall flues and the like, not masonry chimneys. 
 

You’re right to question, but also go back to the legal definition of “reasonable” and apply it here - what would the ordinary man think is the answer ..??

[Randomiser]

You may well be right, but there is nowhere in the Act I can see that defines a chimney or its construction and looking at page 11 of the document from Planning Jungle you linked to which covers Part G it does show a masonry chimney as one of the additions.  In that case the chimney in the diagram it has been built inside the side wall, but given what the Act says about "...on a wall..." I can't see how that is mandated.

 

In terms of "reasonable", the word does appear in the Act, but not in any of the sections that seem to be relevant here, so I suppose it comes down to the planners needing to be reasonable in the application of the law.  If I recall the phrase used was something along the lines of what the man on the Clapham omnibus would think reasonable, but as I have had pointed out to me the man on the Clapham omnibus is quite likely to be a City lawyer or banker these days so I am not sure how good a test it is ?

 

I am planning to make a trip to the council to see the duty planning officer tomorrow and I may add this to the list of points to pick up with them.