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 19 - Certificate of Lawful Development.

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

August 2009 - Code a00019


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, 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, part 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 Conclusions: 


·       Only one elevation can constitute “the principal elevation”.
[Note: This would appear to contradict at least one other appeal decision – for further information see the entry in the “Reference Section” on “Principal Elevation”].
[Relevant to: “Principal Elevation”, A.1(d), B.1(b), E.1(b), F.1, G.1(b)].


·       This appeal decision provides an example of the types of factors that should be taken into consideration when determining which elevation is “the principal elevation”.
[Relevant to: “Principal Elevation”, A.1(d), B.1(b), E.1(b), F.1, G.1(b)].


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


·       Appeal Decision Notice: 

·       Elevations: 

·       Councils Appeal Statement - Part 1: 

·       Councils Appeal Statement - Part 2: 

·       Extract from Householder Development Consents Review: 






Download documents and diagrams of useful

Permitted Development information

permitted development documents download

 Appeal Decisions