Appeal Decision 103 - Certificate of Lawful Development.

The following appeal summary has been written by Steve Speed, and is available on his website www.planningjungle.com

23 February 2010 – 29 Harvey Road, Ilford, IG1 2NJ  

Planning Inspectorate Reference: APP/W5780/X/09/2116447 

Inspector: John Whalley CEng MICE 

London Borough of Redbridge Reference: 1504/09 

Summary of Case (appeal dismissed): 

The property is a two-storey mid-terrace house with an original 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 height of the latter part of the extension would have exceeded (by a significant amount) the height of the ridge-line of the original two-storey rear projection.  

The key issue was whether the proposals would be contrary to Class B, part B.1(a), which states that “Development is not permitted by Class B if … any part of the dwellinghouse would, as a result of the works, exceed the height of the highest part of the existing roof”. 

The Inspector stated the following: 

“The Council refused the application because they said the proposal included an extension which would exceed the height of the highest point of the existing roof. By that they meant the proposed raising of the roof to the existing rear outshoot extension to the height of the proposed main roof dormer extension. They referred me to a decision of my colleague in the appeal case ref: APP/U5930/X/09/2094008, which, they said, supported their interpretation of condition B.1(a) to Class B in Part 1 of the Schedule to the amended Order. In all other aspects of the Order, the Council were satisfied that the proposed works would comply with the terms of the Order. 

I agree with the Council that this appeal should fail. But not for the reason they put forward. The Council said the proposal would not comply with condition B.1(a) that says: Development is not permitted by Class B if – (a) any part of the dwellinghouse would, as a result of the works, exceed the height of the highest part of the existing roof; … . The condition is not clear as to what is meant by “the existing roof”. Clearly, the Council, (and my colleague earlier), regarded it here as applicable to the roof of the rear outshoot. But I prefer the guidance arising from the case of Hammersmith and Fulham LBC v SSE 2068.4.1 [1994] JPL 957 in which D Keene QC, sitting as Deputy Judge, said "the existing roof" referred to the roof of the house as a whole, and not just that of the flat roof extension. He said there was no reason to cut down the scope of the words in para. B.1(a), which should be taken as referring to the highest part of the roof of the dwellinghouse as a whole. That decision predated the 2008 amendment to the Order. But the condition’s wording is the same. On that basis, Mr Assi’s proposal satisfies condition B.1(a).” 

The Inspector then dismissed the appeal on the basis that the proposals would be contrary to Class B, part B.2(b). 

Main Conclusions: 

·       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 “Contents” 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 “Contents” 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)].

 

Link to case on Planning Inspectorate website: 

http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/ViewCase.asp?casename=APP/W5780/X/09/2116447&caseaddress=COO.2036.300.8.2717462 

Link to LPA website: 

www.redbridge.gov.uk 

Download documents and diagrams of useful

Permitted Development information