Appeal Decision 230 - Certificate of Lawful Development.

April 2011 - Code a00230

Summary of Case (appeal allowed): 

The property is a two-storey end-of-terrace house with an original (part-width) two-storey rear projection. The application was for a proposed “L”-shaped dormer, which would have been across both the rear roof of the main part of the house as well as the side roof of the original two-storey rear projection. 

The proposed dormer would be set back by more than 20cm from the outer edge of the section of the roof overhanging the wall of the house, but less than 20cm from the point where the vertical plane of this wall meets the slope of the roof. 

As the eaves of the original two-storey rear projection are at a lower level than the eaves of the main rear roof, the part where the dormer extends from the former roof to the latter roof would involve removing a section of the original eaves of the main rear roof. 

The key issue was whether this would be contrary to Class B, part B.2(b), which states that “other than in the case of a hip-to-gable enlargement, the edge of the enlargement closest to the eaves of the original roof shall, so far as practicable, be not less than 20 centimetres from the eaves of the original roof”. 

“It is common ground that the proposed development would not contravene any of the criteria in Class B.1. The issue in contention is whether the condition in B.2 (b) is met. This requires that ‘other than in the case of a hip-to-gable enlargement, the edge of the enlargement closest to the eaves of the original roof shall, so far as practicable, be not less than 20 centimetres from the eaves of the original roof’. 

The submitted plan shows a 20cm set back. However, where the main roof extension and that above the outrigger would join, there would be a continuous extension that would straddle the eaves of the main roof. The Council contend that, because of this, the proposed development would not comply with condition 2 (b) of Class B. 

Guidance issued by the Department for Communities and Local Government states that the 20cm set back will be required unless it can be demonstrated that this is not possible due to practical or structural considerations. The guidance states that one circumstance where it will not prove practical to maintain this 20cm distance will be where a dormer on a side extension of a house joins an existing, or proposed, dormer on the main roof of the house. The present proposal, which involves a proposed dormer on a rear extension joining a proposed dormer on the main roof of the house, is a very similar circumstance. 

The Council accept that it is only reasonable to allow access between the two parts of the converted roof at the point where this is required, but state that this should not be applied across the entire width of the extension. However, it would not be reasonable to expect the appellant to leave a narrow (20cm) gap between any part of the extension on the main roof and that on the leg of the L. Such a gap would create extreme difficulties for maintenance of the extension. As it would not be practicable to provide the set back in question, the proposed development would therefore comply with condition B.2 (b).” 

Main Conclusions: 

·       Where the eaves of an original two-storey rear projection are at a lower level than the eaves of the main rear roof, the requirement to be not less than 20cm from the eaves of the original roof would not prevent an “L”-shaped dormer that extends from the former roof to the latter roof.
[Relevant to: B.2(b)].

·       Where a property has an original rear projection (with a roof at a similar level to the main roof) then an extension (e.g. a dormer) on the roof of the original rear projection would fall within the scope of Class B (i.e. rather than Class A).
[Note: This would appear to contradict at least one other appeal decision – for further information see the entry in the “Reference Section” on “Interaction between Class A, Class B, and Class C”].
[Relevant to: “Interaction between Class A, Class B, and Class C”, Class A, A.1(i), Class B, B.1(c)].

·       The phrase “the highest part of the existing roof” refers to the house as a whole (i.e. the main ridge-line), and not just the part of the house where the works would be carried out.
[Note: This would appear to contradict at least one other appeal decision – for further information see the entry in the “Reference Section” on “Highest Part of the … Roof”].
[Relevant to: “Highest Part of the … Roof”, A.1(b), C.1(b), G.1(a), H.1(b)].

·       For example, where a property has an original rear projection, a dormer on the roof of the latter structure is limited by the height of the main ridge-line of the house, and not by the height of the ridge-line of the original rear projection.
[Note: This would appear to contradict at least one other appeal decision – for further information see the entry in the “Reference Section” on “Highest Part of the … Roof”].
[Relevant to: “Highest Part of the … Roof”, A.1(b), B.1(a), C.1(b), G.1(a), H.1(b)].

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

·       Appeal Decision Notice:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00230-Appeal-Decision-Notice.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

·       Existing Drawings:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00230-Existing-Drawings.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

·       Proposed Drawings:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00230-Proposed-Drawings.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

Download documents and diagrams of useful

Permitted Development information