ask us a question on permitted development           Permitted Development England
How to build a home extension  without Planning Permission using your PD rights - Oct. 1st 2008



Home Page About Us FAQ Advertise on this site Disclaimer Privacy Contact Us Site Map

Appeal Decision 139 - Certificate of Lawful Development.

This appeal decision summary and assessment has been produced by Planning Jungle Limited.  For more information, please go to


September 2010 - Code a00139


Summary of Case (appeal allowed): 


The property is a detached house, and the application was for a large proposed outbuilding (garage and office) at the end of the rear garden. The proposed outbuilding would have an “L”-shaped footprint, all of which would be at least 2m from the boundary. The proposed outbuilding would have a dual-pitched roof along each of the two sides of the “L”, with a merging section where these two roofs meet and a gable end at either end. 


The key issue was whether the proposed outbuilding would be contrary to Class E, part E.1(d), which states that “Development is not permitted by Class E if … the height of the building, enclosure or container would exceed … (i) 4 metres in the case of a building with a dual-pitched roof, (ii) 2.5 metres in the case of a building, enclosure or container within 2 metres of the boundary of the curtilage of the dwellinghouse, or (iii) 3 metres in any other case”. 


The Inspector stated the following: 


“The ‘pitch’ of a roof or the term ‘dual-pitch’ is not defined in the Order. I understand the thrust of the appellant’s case that the 4m height restriction was designed to ensure that outbuildings are not excessively intrusive in terms of their overall height, whereas the Council focus on the number of roof pitches. Relevant technical guidance from the Department for Communities and Local Government has recently been published on the Planning Portal, which I consider resolves the disputed issue without the need for me to offer any view on what was intended. The guidance states, in regard to the limitation at E.1 (d) (i), that the “height limit on a ‘dual pitched roof’ of four metres should also be applied to buildings that have hipped roofs (slopes on all four sides)”. Applying that guidance to the present case I conclude that a roof may have several slopes but remain ‘dual-pitched’ for the purpose of the limits imposed by E.1 (d). In this case the slopes rise to a central ridge from which measurements of the height of the building can be taken. I therefore conclude that the proposed building, as shown on the submitted drawing, complies with the Class E height limitation for a building with a ‘dual-pitched’ roof.” 


Main Conclusions: 


·       The phrase “dual-pitched roof” applies not just to a roof with a ridge-line with a pitched roof on either side and gable ends (i.e. where the roof has 2 slopes), but also in the case where one or both of the ends are hipped ends (i.e. where the roof has 3 or 4 slopes).
[Relevant to: E.1(d)].


·       The phrase “dual-pitched roof” does apply to an outbuilding with an “L”-shaped footprint with a dual-pitched roof along each of the two sides of the “L”, such that is a merging section where these two roofs meet.
[Relevant to: E.1(d)].


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


·       Appeal Decision Notice: 

·       OS Map: 

·       Drawings: 





Download documents and diagrams of useful

Permitted Development information

permitted development documents download

 Appeal Decisions