Permitted Development England
How to build a
home extension without Planning Permission using your PD rights - Oct. 1st
2008
|
|||||||||
Appeal Decision 183 - Certificate of Lawful Development.
Summary of Case (appeal dismissed):
The property is a detached house, and the application was for a proposed outbuilding at the end of the rear garden. The proposed outbuilding would be located at least 2m from the boundaries, and would have a crown type roof, with a pitch on either side and a flat section on top (see drawings). The eaves would be at height 2.5m, and the flat roof would be at height 4.0m.
The key issue was whether the proposed outbuilding would be contrary to Class E, part E.1(d), which states that “Development is not permitted by Class E if … the height of the building, enclosure or container would exceed … (i) 4 metres in the case of a building with a dual-pitched roof, (ii) 2.5 metres in the case of a building, enclosure or container within 2 metres of the boundary of the curtilage of the dwellinghouse, or (iii) 3 metres in any other case”.
The Inspector stated the following:
“Class E.1 in the Order contains size and locational restrictions to permitted development. The Council’s decision notice does not refer to any criticism they have in relation to E.1, but their officer’s report does, and for completeness I deal with this. Class E.1 says “Development is not permitted by Class E if … (d) the height of the building … would exceed (i) 4 metres in the case of a building with a dual-pitched roof, (ii) 2.5 metres in the case of a building … within 2 metres of the boundary of the curtilage of the dwellinghouse, or (iii) 3 metres in any other case.” The check-list in the Council officer’s report answers “yes” to a question about whether the height of the outbuilding would exceed these measurements. The plans show that the outbuilding would not be within 2 m of the curtilage boundary, so E.1(d)(ii) does not apply. The outbuilding would have a roof 4 m high which the Council describe as crownpitched: this consists of 2 sloping sides with a flat element linking them. Clearly if the roof were to be regarded as dual-pitched it would comply with E.1(d), but if the roof were not to be so regarded it would not comply.
The August 2010 publication by the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG), “Permitted development for householders – Technical guidance”, says that the 4 m limit should be applied to hipped-roof buildings (which of course have 4 roof slopes), so it seems to me that it must also properly apply to a roof of the sort proposed here that has 3 elements. In other words, I see no reason why the interpretation of “dual pitch” in DCLG’s August 2010 publication should not apply to the somewhat different circumstances here. So the proposed outbuilding passes the test in clause E.1(d) of the Order”.
The Inspector then dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that the proposed outbuilding would be required for a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse as such, pointing out that “the burden of proof is on him [the appellant]”.
[Note: I’m not particularly convinced by the above conclusion that the phrase “dual-pitched roof” applies to an outbuilding with a mansard / crown type roof.
As an example, imagine a building with a square footprint and a standard dual-pitched roof (i.e. a central ridge-line with a slope on either side and gable ends), with eaves at height 2.5m and ridge-line at height 4m. If one or both of the two gable ends is changed to a hipped end (to result in a roof with 3 or 4 slopes), whilst retaining the eaves at height 2.5m and ridge-line at height 4m, then the average height of the building would decrease, and the potential for the building to impact upon neighbouring properties would decrease. In my opinion, it therefore makes sense to class such a roof as “dual-pitched”, because otherwise it would be necessary to further reduce the height of the building (from a maximum of 4m to a maximum of 3m) even though the building already has less impact than one with a standard dual-pitched roof. As such, I therefore agree with the interpretation that the phrase “dual-pitched roof” applies in the case of a roof with 3 or 4 slopes.
However, now imagine the same starting building with a square footprint and a standard dual-pitched roof (i.e. a central ridge-line with a slope on either side and gable ends), with eaves at height 2.5m and ridge-line at height 4m. If the central ridge-line is split and pulled outwards to form a flat area on top (to result in a mansard type roof), whilst retaining the eaves at height 2.5m and ridge-line at height 4m, then the average height of the building would increase, and the potential for the building to impact upon neighbouring properties would increase. In my opinion, it therefore no longer makes sense to class such a roof as “dual-pitched”, because this would allow buildings with a greater impact than one with a standard dual-pitched roof. As such, I therefore disagree with the interpretation that the phrase “dual-pitched roof” applies to an outbuilding with a mansard / crown type roof, with a pitch on either side and a flat area on top].
Main Conclusions:
·
The phrase “dual-pitched roof”
applies not just to a roof with a ridge-line with a pitched roof on either side and gable ends (i.e. where
the roof has 2 slopes), but also in the case where one or both of the ends are hipped ends (i.e. where the
roof has 3 or 4 slopes).
·
The phrase “dual-pitched roof”
does apply to an outbuilding with a mansard / crown type roof (i.e. either a roof with shallow pitches in the
centre and steeper pitches at the sides, or a roof with a flat area in the centre and pitches at the
sides).
·
In an application for a
certificate of lawfulness, the burden of proof is firmly on the applicant.
Links to the “Appeal Decision Notice” and other associated documents (e.g. drawings, etc):
· Appeal Decision
Notice: · OS
Map: ·
Drawings:
Download documents and diagrams of useful Permitted Development information
| |||||||||
|
©2020 - Christopher Hunt :: This page
last updated: :: 