Appeal Decision 206 - 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
February 2011 - Code a00206
Summary of Case (appeal
The property is a two-storey
semi-detached house. The main roof is dual-pitched, with front and rear facing pitches and a gable end. The
application was for a proposed two-storey rear extension. The roof of the proposed extension would be
mono-pitched, with the pitch facing sideways towards the adjoining semi-detached property. The eaves of this
mono-pitch roof (on the side nearest the adjoining semi-detached property) would be at height
The first key issue was
whether the proposed rear extension would be contrary to Class A, part A.1(i), which states that “Development is
not permitted by Class A if … it would consist of or include … an alteration to any part of the roof of the
The Inspector stated the
“The Council's case has
expanded since it refused the application. Its decision said that, firstly, the proposal would include, but not
consist of, an alteration to the dwellinghouse’s roof, so it could not benefit from permitted development rights
in Classes A or B. The appellant did not contest this, and the Council cited an appeal decision
[January 2010 - Code
a00081] which held that an extension butting into an original roof
did indeed involve an alteration to it.
The decision went on to
say that, in terms of Class C (which relates to other alterations to a roof) the proposal would protrude more
than 150mm beyond the plane of the original roof, and so would not meet the limitation in C.1 (a). From this the
Council concluded that it would require specific planning permission.
However, subsequently the
Dept of Communities and Local Government issued Technical Guidance on Permitted Development Rights for
Householders (TG), to aid interpretation of recent changes to the GPDO. It advises that changes to a house’s
roof are not permitted development under Class A, but may be under Class B or C. “For example, where a proposed
two storey extension at the rear of a house has a roof that joins onto the main roof of the original house, the
works will need to meet the requirements of both Class A (which covers the enlargement of the house) and Class C
(which covers any alterations to the roof) in order to be permitted development”.
As the appellant points
out, the TG says in relation to the Council's point under Class C, “This limitation to projection from the
roof plane should not be applied in cases where the roof of an extension to a house that is permitted
development under Class A is joined to the roof of the original house. In such cases, the roof of the extension
should not be considered as protruding from the original roof”. The Council's contention is therefore now
contrary to the TG’s advice and so is not well-founded.”
The second key issue was
whether the proposals would be contrary to Class A, part A.1(g), which states that “Development is not permitted
by Class A if … the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would be within 2 metres of the boundary of the curtilage
of the dwellinghouse, and the height of the eaves of the enlarged part would exceed 3 metres”.
The Inspector stated the
“The proposal would have
only one eaves which would accord with this definition, and so is the only one to be assessed under A.1(g);
the top of the monopitch would be a “ridge”, not an eaves.”
Class A does permit an
extension with a roof that would join onto the roof of the main house.
[Note: This would appear to contradict
at least one other appeal decision – for further information see the entry in the “Reference Section” on
“Interaction between Class A, Class B, and Class C”].
[Relevant to: “Interaction between Class A, Class B, and
Class C”, Class A, A.1(i), Class B, B.1(c)].
For an extension with a pitched
roof, the “eaves” of the extension are the lower end of the slope, and can not be taken to be the
higher end (i.e. ridge-line) of the slope.
[Relevant to: “Eaves”, A.1(g), E.1(e)].
Where the roof of an extension
would have a similar angle to the main roof, but would have a different orientation, it is possible
for such an extension to comply with Class A, part A.3(c).
[Relevant to: A.3(c)].
Links to the “Appeal
Decision Notice” and other associated documents (e.g. drawings, etc):
Download documents and diagrams of