Appeal Decision 211 - Certificate of Lawful Development.

February 2011 - Code a00211

Summary of Case (appeal allowed): 

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 following: 

“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.” 

Main Conclusions: 

·       Where a property has a hipped roof, it is possible for an extension with a crown roof to comply with Class A, part A.3(c).
[Relevant to: A.3(c)].

Links to the “Appeal Decision Notice” and other associated documents (e.g. drawings, etc): 

·       Appeal Decision Notice:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00211-Appeal-Decision-Notice.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

·       OS Map:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00211-OS-Map.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

·       Existing Drawings:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00211-Existing-Drawings.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

·       Proposed Drawings:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00211-Proposed-Drawings.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

Download documents and diagrams of useful

Permitted Development information