Appeal Decision 211 - 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
February 2011 - Code a00211
Summary of Case (appeal
The property is a two-storey
detached house, with a hipped main roof. The application was for a proposed two-storey rear extension, with a
crown roof that would join onto the roof of the main house.
The Council’s reason for
refusal was as follows:
“The proposed development
does not constitute permitted development … as the proposed extension, with its crown roof, would not have the
same roof pitch as the original dwellinghouse”.
The key issue was whether the
proposed extension would be contrary to Class A, part A.3(c), which states that “Development is permitted by
Class A subject to the following conditions— … (c) where the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse has more than
one storey, the roof pitch of the enlarged part shall, so far as practicable, be the same as the roof pitch of
the original dwellinghouse”.
The Inspector stated the
“In his grounds of appeal
the appellant explains that the extension has been designed with the same roof pitch but that, due to the
practicalities of not exceeding the height of the existing dwellinghouse roof (which would take the proposal
outside permitted development limits) the design includes a flat roofed element.
The Council had the
disadvantage of having to reach a decision on the application, and indeed probably prepared their appeal
statement, before the Department of Communities and Local Government issued its Technical Guidance, Permitted
Development for Householders. However, within that Guidance there is reference to Condition A.3(c) and, in
particular, a diagrammatical example is given of a development which is considered to be permitted development.
Although not identical to the appeal proposal, the principle is the same, in that the example given by the
Technical Guidance also relates to an extension where part of the roof has the same pitch as the existing house
but where there is also an element where that does not apply because, had the roof continued to rise at the same
pitch, it would have exceeded the height of the existing dwellinghouse roof. That is nevertheless considered to
be permitted development by the Guidance.
Accordingly, applying the
same approach to this case, I conclude that the development proposed by the appellant does constitute
permitted development. As a consequence I also conclude that the Council’s decision to refuse a LDC was not
well-founded and I shall allow the appeal accordingly.”
Where a property has a hipped
roof, it is possible for an extension with a crown roof to comply with Class A, part
Links to the “Appeal
Decision Notice” and other associated documents (e.g. drawings, etc):
Download documents and diagrams of