Appeal Decision 19 -
Certificate of Lawful Development.
The
following appeal summary has been written by Steve
Speed, and is available on his website
www.planningjungle.com
14 August 2009 – 190 Church Road,
Teddington, Middlesex TW11 8QL
Planning
Inspectorate Reference:
APP/L5810/X/09/2102100
London
Borough of Richmond-upon-Thames Reference:
08/3331/PS192
Summary of Case (appeal
allowed):
·
The
property is a two-storey mid-terrace property, with Church Road
to the front and Railway Road to the rear, and the application
was for a rear dormer.
The key issue is whether the proposed rear dormer would be
contrary to Class B, part B.1(b), which states that
“development is not permitted by Class B if … any part of the
dwellinghouse would, as a result of the works, any part extend
beyond the plane of any existing roof slope which forms the
principal elevation of the dwellinghouse and fronts a
highway”. The
Council argued that, for this property, both the front roof
slope and the rear roof slope constitute a principal
elevation. They
pointed out that several publications from CLG could support
this argument, including the letter that was sent from CLG to
Chief Planning Officers in September 2008, which stated that
“The order, therefore, simply specifies that a principal
elevation fronts a highway” (for more information about these
documents, see the Council’s Appeal Statement, paragraphs
10-23).
The Inspector disagreed with the above
arguments.
He stated that the use of the definite article in the
phrase “the
principal elevation” combined with the plain English
definition of the word ‘principal’ must, in his view,
mean that there can only be one elevation on a
dwellinghouse to which the Class B, B.1(b) exception can
apply. He
stated that where there is more than one elevation that
could be judged to be the ‘principal’ one, the wording of
the GPDO requires a decision to be made on the particular
facts as to which one it is. He concluded that in
this particular case, the principal elevation is the one
fronting Church Road.
Main Conclusion:
·
Only one elevation
can constitute “the principal elevation”. (Note:
This would appear to contradict the appeal decision dated 22
May 2009 for 27 St Werburgh’s Road).
Link to
case on Planning Inspectorate website:
http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/ViewCase.asp?casename=APP/L5810/X/09/2102100&caseaddress=COO.2036.300.8.1569586
Download
documents and diagrams of
useful
Permitted
Development information

|