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