Appeal Decision 220 - Certificate of Lawful
Development.
This appeal decision summary and
assessment has been produced by Planning Jungle Limited. For more information, please go to www.planningjungle.com/?p=20
|
March 2011 - Code a00220
Summary of Case (appeal
dismissed):
The property is a
semi-detached house. Following a grant of planning permission, a new house is currently being built to the side
of the property, with the original rear garden of the property being subdivided to form the two new rear
gardens. The application was for a proposed outbuilding at the end of the rear garden, which would consists of a
sunroom, gym, wet room, hot tub room, children’s playroom, and WC (total footprint over 100m2). The proposed
outbuilding would be located at least 2m from the boundaries, and would have a crown type roof, with a pitch on
all four sides 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:
“The Appellant says that
the building would have a dual-pitched roof which would not exceed 4m in height thereby satisfying criterion E.1
(d)(i). However, whilst the roof would be semi-hipped, it would not have a ridge but a substantial part of it
would be a flat roof above the tiles. It would not therefore be a dual-pitched roof but must satisfy
criterion E.1 (d)(iii) where the maximum permitted height would be 3m. Since the roof of the building would be
4m high it would therefore fail to satisfy this requirement.”
The Inspector also concluded
that the proposed outbuilding would not be “incidental to the enjoyment of the
dwellinghouse”.
Main
Conclusions:
·
The phrase “dual-pitched roof”
does not 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). [Note: This would appear to contradict
at least one other appeal decision – for further information see the entry in the “Reference Section” on
“E.1(d)”]. [Relevant to: E.1(d)].
Links to the “Appeal
Decision Notice” and other associated documents (e.g. drawings, etc):
·
Appeal Decision
Notice:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00220-Appeal-Decision-Notice.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes
·
OS Map 1: http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00220-OS-Map-1.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes
·
OS Map 2: http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00220-OS-Map-2.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes
·
Block Plan: http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00220-Block-Plan.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes
·
Elevations: http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00220-Elevations.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes
Download documents and diagrams of
useful
Permitted Development
information
|