Appeal Decision 118 - Certificate of Lawful Development.

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

12 May 2010 – 20 Grosvenor Vale, Ruislip, Middlesex, HA4 6JQ  

Planning Inspectorate Reference: APP/R5510/X/09/2113819 

Inspector: R J Perrins MA MCMI 

London Borough of Hillingdon Reference: 18731/APP/2009/367 

Summary of Case (appeal dismissed): 

The property is a two-storey detached house. One part of the main roof consists of a front gable with a ridge-line running from front to rear, and ending in a rear hipped section, whilst the other part of the main roof is flat. Along the front elevation of both the front gable and the flat roof runs a small strip of pitched roof. The application was for a proposed roof extension, which would resulted in both of the existing parts of the roof being converted into a hipped roof at the front and a gable roof at the rear. As this situation is difficult to describe, please refer to the submitted plans.  

The first key issue was whether the proposed roof extension would be contrary to Class B, part B.1(c), which states that “Development is not permitted by Class B if … the cubic content of the resulting roof space would exceed the cubic content of the original roof space by more than— (i) 40 cubic metres in the case of a terrace house, or (ii) 50 cubic metres in any other case”. 

The Inspector stated the following: 

“It is clear from those agreed measurements there is some ambiguity between what is shown on the drawings submitted and the existing dwelling. The proposed elevations plan shows the width and height of the rear extension to approximately 8.1 metres and 2.8 metres respectively. In addition the drawing submitted by the appellant, showing the calculations of volume for the existing and proposed roof, is at odds with the proposed plans. For example that drawing shows the proposed roof as having a depth of 8.5 metres; when compared to the proposed plans the same measurement is approximately 8.2 metres. 

Paragraph 8.12 of Circular 10/97 Enforcing Planning Control: Legislative Provisions and Procedural Requirements confirms that the onus of proof in a LDC application is firmly on the applicant/appellant. It is not a matter for me to work out the volume of what exits or is proposed. In any event I am not convinced that would be possible given the drawings and measurements I have available to me. I must therefore find, as matter of fact and degree, that Schedule 2, Part 1, Class B, B.1(c)(ii) would not be met and the application must fail. 

The second key issue was whether the proposed roof extension would be contrary to Class B, part B.2(b), which states that “Development is permitted by Class B subject to the following conditions … (b) 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 Inspector stated the following: 

“In addition, I have considered the Council’s view that the development falls foul of the condition set out in my first paragraph. It is unfortunate that the Council have not indicated why they believe that to be so. Nevertheless, it is clear from the condition that there is no requirement for a 20 cms set-back for a hip-to-gable enlargement as proposed for the rear elevation. In addition the existing side elevation to the north-east has a flat-roof and therefore no eaves to be set back from. 

However, the front elevation has a section of pitched roof which sits in front of the gable-end and stretches in front of the flat-roofed element. The proposed roof plan shows that and the gable-end to be removed and replaced by a new hipped roof plane. It must follow, that the resulting roof enlargement would not be set-back by 20cms from the original eaves at the front. The same argument applies for the south-west elevation where the drawings indicate the existing roof slope to be replaced. In addition there is nothing before me regarding the practicality of setting the roof back 20cms. For these reasons I also find that the development would not meet the condition set out in paragraph B.2(b).” 

Main Conclusions:  

·       It is not possible to comply with Class B, part B.2(b) if the original eaves have been removed.
[Relevant to: B.2(b)].

·       In an application for a certificate of lawfulness, the burden of proof is firmly on the applicant.
[Relevant to: "General”].

Link to case on Planning Inspectorate website: 

http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/ViewCase.asp?casename=APP/R5510/X/09/2113819&caseaddress=COO.2036.300.8.2497089 

Link to LPA website: 

http://www.hillingdon.gov.uk

Download documents and diagrams of useful

Permitted Development information