Appeal Decision 107 - Certificate of Lawful Development.

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

9 March 2010 – 142 The Harebreaks, Watford, Herts, WD24 6NU  

Planning Inspectorate Reference: APP/Y1945/X/09/2115124 

Inspector: Dennis Bradley BSc(Econ) DipTP MRTPI 

Watford Borough Council Reference: 09/00678/LDC 

Summary of Case (appeal allowed): 

The property is a two-storey mid-terrace house. Its rear elevation is slightly staggered, such that the part that projects slightly further rearward has a lower eaves than the other part. The application was for proposed two-storey / single storey rear extension, with the two-storey part in the centre of the rear elevation (set away from the boundaries) and the single storey part to the sides. The proposed two-storey part would have projected 3m from the rear wall of the main house, with a stagger to match that of the main house. However, the entire eaves of the proposed two-storey part would have been at the level of the higher eaves on the main house, rather than having a stagger to match that of the main house. 

The key issue was whether the eaves of the proposed two-storey rear extension would be contrary to Class A, part A.1(c), which states that “Development is not permitted by Class A if … the height of the eaves of the part of the dwellinghouse enlarged, improved or altered would exceed the height of the eaves of the existing dwellinghouse” 

The Inspector stated the following: 

“… The parties agree that the proposal satisfies most of these requirements but disagree about section A.1 (c). This requires that the height of the eaves of the part of the dwellinghouse enlarged, improved or altered should not exceed the height of the eaves of the existing dwellinghouse. In the present case the eaves of the proposed extension would not exceed the maximum height of the eaves but would exceed the lower height. The parties accept that the eaves of the dormer window are not relevant in this case.  

The Council argues that the lower figure should be used in applying the requirement, but the appellant argues that the higher figure is more appropriate. Such questions must be a matter of judgement since the wording of the Order is ambiguous in this respect. However, I noted that along the terrace in which the property is situated the roofs of the dwellings generally have an eaves height of five metres, and that only a relatively small part have the lower eaves height. Within the appeal premises about 30% of the rear eaves are at the lower level. The whole of the eaves along the front elevation are at the higher level. 

It would appear to me that the spirit of the Order suggests the higher figure should be applied since it is clearly the predominant eaves level. The aim of the Order is to relax the planning regime for proposals of this type, and the use of the lower figure would effectively exclude any two-storey extensions at premises where this situation applies. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be allowed and that a Lawful Development Certificate be granted.” 

Although not specifically addressed by the Inspector, the fact that this appeal was allowed implies that Class A does permit an extension with a roof that would join onto the roof of the main house. 

Although not specifically addressed by the Inspector, the fact that this appeal was allowed implies that where parts of a proposed extension are within 2m of a boundary, the 3m eaves height limit applies only to those parts within 2m of the boundary. 

Main Conclusions: 

·       Where the main eaves of a house are at more than one level, the reference to the “height of the eaves of the existing dwellinghouse” refers to the predominant eaves level.
[Relevant to: A.1(c)]. 

·       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 “Contents” section on “A.1(i)”].
[Relevant to: A.1(i)]. 

·       Where parts of a proposed extension are within 2m of a boundary, the 3m eaves height limit applies only to those parts within 2m of the boundary.
[Note: This would appear to contradict at least one other appeal decision – for further information see the entry in the “Contents” section on “A.1(g)”]
[Relevant to: A.1(g), E.1(d)]. 

Link to case on Planning Inspectorate website: 

http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/ViewCase.asp?casename=APP/Y1945/X/09/2115124&caseaddress=COO.2036.300.8.2605746 

Link to LPA website: 

www.watford.gov.uk 

Download documents and diagrams of useful

Permitted Development information