Appeal Decision 198 - Certificate of Lawful
This appeal decision summary and
assessment has been produced by Planning Jungle Limited. For more information, please go to www.planningjungle.com/?p=20
January 2011 - Code a00198
Summary of Case (appeal
The property is a two-storey
semi-detached house with a hipped main roof. The property has previously been extended with a two-storey side
extension. The hipped roof of the extension joins onto the main hipped roof, albeit with the ridge-line of the
former at a lower level than the ridge-line of the latter. The application proposed to convert the hipped end of
the main roof (part of which covered by the attached roof of the extension) into a gable end, and to erect a
large rear dormer.
The key issue was whether the
proposed enlargement of the roof would be contrary to Class B, part B.1(c), which states that “Development is
not permitted by Class B if … the cubic content of the resulting roof space would exceed the cubic content of
the original roof space by more than— (i) 40 cubic metres in the case of a terrace house, or (ii) 50 cubic
metres in any other case”.
The Inspector stated the
“The appellant’s agent and
the Council agree that the volume of roof extension involved in the hip to gable and the new rear dormer would
be 36.41 m: in total. The difference between the two parties is in the additional calculation of the volume of
roof over the existing two storey extension. This is an alteration/addition to the original roof and its
volume must be included in the calculation.
Further, the difference
between the two parties is quite close with the appellant calculating the volume of the existing roof at 14.28
m:, giving rise to a total volume of 49.53 m:, whereas the Council estimate the existing roof to be 19.72 m:,
giving rise to a total volume of 56.13 m:
In considering these
differences a number of aspects concern me. Firstly, the Council appear to have used measurements scaled from
copies of the plans rather than the appellant’s dimensions as stated on the plans. However, not all the relevant
dimensions are included on the plans, and in particular there is insufficient information to properly calculate
the awkward three dimensional shape of parcel ‘1’. This has led to both parties having to estimate the external
volume of this space. Further, the appellant’s agent appears to have used an incorrect formula for calculating
the volume of parcel ‘2’.
Given that the decision as
to whether the volume of the total additions to the roof exceeds 50 m: may turn on a very fine degree of
calculation, I am not satisfied that sufficiently detailed information has been submitted for the parties to be
able to reach a clear and unequivocal conclusion on the total volume of the existing and proposed work. The
advice in Circular 10/1997 highlights that in such LDC applications, the onus lies on the appellant to
provide sufficient evidence to establish their case. On the balance of probability, I find that the claim of
lawfulness has not been established to a proper degree.”
Where there is an existing
extension with a roof that joins onto the roof of the main house, then this will reduce the volume
allowance that remains for roof extensions under Class B, part B.1(c).
[Relevant to: “Interaction between Class A, Class B, and
Class C”, Class A, A.1(i), Class B, B.1(c)].
Furthermore, even if the roof of
the existing extension doesn’t contain any dormers / rooflights / habitable rooms / etc, this will still
reduce the volume allowance that remains for roof extensions under Class B, part
[Relevant to: “Interaction
between Class A, Class B, and Class C”, Class A, A.1(i), Class B, B.1(c)].
In an application for a
certificate of lawfulness, the burden of proof is firmly on the
[Relevant to: "General”].
Links to the “Appeal
Decision Notice” and other associated documents (e.g. drawings, etc):
Download documents and diagrams of