Appeal Decision 172 - Certificate of Lawful
This appeal decision summary and
assessment has been produced by Planning Jungle Limited. For more information, please go to www.planningjungle.com/?p=20
December 2010 - Code
[Note: There is another
appeal decision for this same property – see July 2011 - Code
Summary of Case (appeal
The property is a two-storey
semi-detached house, which has previously been significantly extended. These previous extensions include a
two-storey side and rear extension, with a roof that joints onto the roof of the main house. The application was
for a proposed roof extension to the roof of the main house.
The key issue was whether the
proposed enlargement of the roof 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
“The proposed development
comprises additions to an existing hipped roof to form a pitched roof incorporating three front windows and a
dormer window to the rear. There are discrepancies between the existing and proposed plans that accompanied the
application in relation to the roof profile of the existing dwelling. As inaccurate plans were submitted the
Council considered it was not possible to determine whether the proposal would be permitted development. The
Council nevertheless indicated that it is likely that the proposed loft conversion would exceed the limits of
permitted development given the size of existing extensions to the property.
Class B, Part 1 of the
Schedule of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No. 2) (England) Order
2008 (GPDO) permits the enlargement of a dwellinghouse consisting of an addition or alteration to its roof
subject to a number of limitations. The cubic content of the resulting roof space must not exceed the cubic
content of the original roof space by more than 50 cubic metres.
The property already
benefits from a two storey side extension. This includes a pitched roof over the extension. It does not form
part of the original roof space. The criterion specifically refers to the ‘original’ roof space and not the
‘existing’ roof space. As such, I agree with the Council that the cubic content of the roof of the existing
extension should be included in the calculation to determine the resulting roof space.
Given the inaccuracies in
the submitted plans I agree that it is not possible to accurately determine whether the proposals would meet the
GPDO requirements. Whilst it is apparent that the discrepancy is a drafting error relating to the existing roof
profile, I must determine the appeal based on those drawings determined by the Council. In any event, the
appellant does not dispute that the cubic content of the roof would exceed 50 cubic metres of the original cubic
content of the roof, if the existing roof extension is also taken into account”.
Where there is an existing
extension with a roof that joins onto the roof of the main house, then this will reduce the volume allowance
that remains for roof extensions under Class B, part B.1(c).
[Relevant to: “Interaction between Class A, Class B, and
Class C”, Class A, A.1(i), Class B, B.1(c)].
Furthermore, even if the roof of
the existing extension doesn’t contain any dormers / rooflights / habitable rooms / etc, this will still
reduce the volume allowance that remains for roof extensions under Class B, part
[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
· Existing Floor
· Proposed Floor
Download documents and diagrams of