Appeal Decision 238 - Certificate of Lawful Development.

April 2011 - Code a00238

Summary of Case (appeal allowed): 

The property is a two-storey detached house set within considerable grounds. The application was for a proposed part two-storey / part single-storey rear extension, with a roof that would join onto the roof of the main house. 

The key issue was whether the proposed extension would be contrary to Class A, part A.1(i), which states that “Development is not permitted by Class A if … it would consist of or include … an alteration to any part of the roof of the dwellinghouse”. 

The Inspector stated the following: 

“The site is a two storey detached property which lies in an area of countryside. The land around the property is generally open, however, the red line of the application site generally coincides with the remnants of a fence/hedge which is likely to be the extent of the residential curtilage. It is proposed to erect a two storey addition extending out 3m from the rear of the existing gabled extension and with a hipped roof. A proposed single storey extension would adjoin this on the east side and the part pitched, part flat roof, would extend out from the existing cat-slide roof. 

… 

Schedule 2, Part 1, of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, as amended, refers to development within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse and allows as ‘permitted development’ under Class A “the enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwelling house”. Section A.1 sets out criteria (a) to (i) which indicate development that is not permitted. Part C relates to any other alteration to the roof of a dwellinghouse and similarly C.1 sets out criteria of development that is not permitted. I have also taken into consideration the guidance set out in ‘Permitted development for Households: Technical Guidance’ as published by the Department of Communities and Local Government in August 2010. 

The development proposed falls within Class A as permitted development and in relation to each of the criteria in A.1 and I am satisfied that it does not breach any limiting factor. 

The Council say that the extension is not permitted by virtue of A.1 (i) (iv) which says that development is not permitted if it involves “an alteration to any part of the roof of the dwellinghouse”. Class C authorises alterations to the roof other than where the alteration would protrude more than 150mm above the plane of the roof. However, the Technical Guidance says that “this limitation to projection from the plane of the roof should not be applied in cases where the roof of an extension to a house that is permitted development under Class A is joined to the roof of the original house. In such cases, the roof of the extension should not be considered as protruding from the original roof.” 

For the reasons given above I conclude, on the evidence now available, that the Council’s refusal to grant a certificate of lawful use or development in respect of the erection of a two storey extension and attached single storey extension to the rear (south east) elevation of the property was not well-founded and that the appeal should succeed. I will exercise the powers transferred to me under section 195(2) of the 1990 Act as amended.” 

[Note: In my opinion, the interpretation that the roof of this type of extension should be assessed against Class C (and not Class B), as per the advice in the “DCLG - Permitted development for householders - Technical guidance” (August 2010) document, is very contrived and questionable – please see my notes on this issue in the entry for March 2011 - Code a00224. 

Main Conclusions: 

·       Class A does permit an extension with a roof that would join onto the roof of the main house.
[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)].

·       Where a Class A extension would have a roof that would join onto the roof of the main house, but the roof of the extension would not contain any dormers / rooflights / habitable rooms / etc, then the extension should also be assessed against Class C (and not Class B), ignoring the 150mm projection limit.
[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”].
[Note: In my opinion, this interpretation is very contrived and questionable].
[Relevant to: “Interaction between Class A, Class B, and Class C”, Class A, A.1(i), Class B, B.1(c)].

 

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

·       Appeal Decision Notice:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00238-Appeal-Decision-Notice.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

·       OS Map:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00238-OS-Map.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

·       Drawings:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00238-Drawings.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

·       Proposed Block Plan:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00238-Proposed-Block-Plan.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

Download documents and diagrams of useful

Permitted Development information