Appeal Decision 22 - Certificate of Lawful Development.

28 August 2009 – 25 Malta Road, London, E10 7JT

Planning Inspectorate Reference: APP/U5930/X/09/2094008

London Borough of Waltham Forest Reference: 2008/1760/CLP

Summary of Case (appeal dismissed):

·      The property is a two-storey mid-terrace house, with an original two-storey rear projection.  The application was for an existing roof extension (begun after 1 October 2008) over the original two-storey rear projection.

The Inspector noted that the roof extension exceeds the height of the ridge-line of the “original rear section”, and concluded that it is therefore contrary to Class B, part B.1(a), which states that “development is not permitted by Class B if … any part of the dwellinghouse would, as a result of the works, exceed the height of the highest part of the existing roof”.  This would appear to suggest that where a property has an original rear projection, a roof extension on top of this rear projection can notbe higher than the ridge-line of the latter (as opposed to the view that it can not be higher than the main ridge-line).  However, from a conversation with the Council, it appears that in this case the roof extension did actually exceed the height of the main ridge-line, and therefore it appears that the above suggestion should not be applied.  Furthermore, it would appear that there is caselaw (Hammersmith & Fulham L.B. v S.O.S. 30/11/1993) that confirms that the phrase "height of the highest part of the existing roof" refers to the dwelling as a whole (i.e. the main ridge-line) and not the particular part of the roof where works were to be carried out. [Source: DCP Online, section 4.3447].

The Inspector also examined the issue that the roof extension has not been set-back from the eaves of the original roof, noting that Class B, part B.2 (a) states that “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 applicant had claimed that in this case this set-back was not practicable, as such an inset could only be achieved by introducing a new structural beam to support the wall, floor and roof of the extension; which would have meant both additional cost and delay before the works could have been carried out.  The Inspector disagreed with this argument.  He stated that in most situations it will be necessary to introduce one or more structural beams in order to form a roof enlargement with an inset from the eaves of the original roof of not less than 20cm, that the provision of such beams will inevitably involve additional cost, and that there is no evidence before him to demonstrate that in this case those works would have been unacceptably expensive.  In addition, the Inspector stated that simply because the scheme might have been a delayed as a result of this set-back is not a sufficient reason to find that the set-back is not practicable.

Main Conclusion:

·      The fact that the 20cm set-back of a roof extension would result in additional cost or delay is not sufficient in itself to justify that such a set-back would not be “practicable”.

Link to case on Planning Inspectorate website:

http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/ViewCase.asp?casename=APP/U5930/X/09/2094008&caseaddress=COO.2036.300.8.991689

Download documents and diagrams of useful

Permitted Development information