Appeal Decision 20 - Certificate of Lawful Development.

24 August 2009 – 203 Garden Wood Road, East Grinstead, RH19 1SH

Planning Inspectorate Reference: APP/D3830/X/09/2097566

Mid-Sussex District Council Reference: 08/03930/LDC

Summary of Case (appeal dismissed):  

·      The property is a two-storey detached house, with a front and rear roof slope, and gabled sides.  The application was for a rear dormer.  The submitted drawings indicated that the rear elevation of this dormer would be set-back from the eaves of the main rear roof, and an annotation stated “min. 200mm from eaves to face of dormer”.

The key issue was whether the proposals would be contrary to Class B, part B.2(b), which states that “other than in the case of a hip-to-gable enlargement, the edge of the enlargement closest to the eaves of the original roof shall, so far as practicable, be not less than 20 centimetres from the eaves of the original roof”.

The Council’s reason for refusal was as follows:

“The proposed dormer window would not constitute permitted development under Schedule, Part 1, Class B.2 (b) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No. 2) (England) Order 2008, as it would fall within 20 centimetres of the eaves of the original roof.”

The Inspector stated that the key consideration in this case centres upon the gauge of the existing roof tiles and the proposed detail at the junction of the new vertical face of the dormer with the existing roof slope at the eaves. In particular, she would expect such a detail to be based on an exact number of courses of roof tiling below the base of the new vertical face and for it to show some form of flashing from under the new vertical tile hanging dressed over the exiting roof tiling.  However, the submitted drawings provide no information as to the size, type and gauge of roof tile, and there are no large scale details to demonstrate what is envisaged.  The Inspector concluded that she is unable to properly ascertain whether or not it would be practicable to construct the new dormer ‘at a minimum of 200mm from eaves to face of dormer’ as suggested on the appellant’s drawings. She stated that, as the drawings stand, if they were interpreted literally, the new vertical face could be set 200mm from the eaves and result in an unsatisfactory detail.

The Inspector also went on to state that, in any event, when the soffit of the eaves was measured on site it was more than 300mm deep. Therefore, if the proposed vertical face was constructed only 200mm from the extremity of the eaves it would fall outwith the main outside wall of the dwelling. To the Inspector’s mind, this would result in an unsightly building and is not something which is envisaged by the GPDO.

Main Conclusion:

·      For a proposed rear dormer, the Inspector concluded that it was insufficient for the applicant to simply show a 200mm set-back from the eaves of the original roof (with an annotation confirming this) without also demonstrating that such a set-back is practicable to construct, for example by considering the size, type, and gauge of the roof tile. [Note: This conclusion that construction details should be provided, including the Inspector’s argument that the proposals would result in “an unsightly building”, appears somewhat unusual].

Link to case on Planning Inspectorate website:

http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/ViewCase.asp?casename=APP/D3830/X/09/2097566&caseaddress=COO.2036.300.8.1224757

Download documents and diagrams of useful

Permitted Development information