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 220 - Certificate of Lawful Development.

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



March 2011 - Code a00220


Summary of Case (appeal dismissed): 


The property is a semi-detached house. Following a grant of planning permission, a new house is currently being built to the side of the property, with the original rear garden of the property being subdivided to form the two new rear gardens. The application was for a proposed outbuilding at the end of the rear garden, which would consists of a sunroom, gym, wet room, hot tub room, children’s playroom, and WC (total footprint over 100m2). The proposed outbuilding would be located at least 2m from the boundaries, and would have a crown type roof, with a pitch on all four sides and a flat section on top (see drawings). The eaves would be at height 2.5m, and the flat roof would be at height 4.0m. 


The key issue was whether the proposed outbuilding would be contrary to Class E, part E.1(d), which states that “Development is not permitted by Class E if … the height of the building, enclosure or container would exceed … (i) 4 metres in the case of a building with a dual-pitched roof, (ii) 2.5 metres in the case of a building, enclosure or container within 2 metres of the boundary of the curtilage of the dwellinghouse, or (iii) 3 metres in any other case”. 


The Inspector stated the following: 


“The Appellant says that the building would have a dual-pitched roof which would not exceed 4m in height thereby satisfying criterion E.1 (d)(i). However, whilst the roof would be semi-hipped, it would not have a ridge but a substantial part of it would be a flat roof above the tiles. It would not therefore be a dual-pitched roof but must satisfy criterion E.1 (d)(iii) where the maximum permitted height would be 3m. Since the roof of the building would be 4m high it would therefore fail to satisfy this requirement.” 


The Inspector also concluded that the proposed outbuilding would not be “incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse”. 


Main Conclusions: 


·       The phrase “dual-pitched roof” does not apply to an outbuilding with a mansard / crown type roof (i.e. either a roof with shallow pitches in the centre and steeper pitches at the sides, or a roof with a flat area in the centre and pitches at the sides).
[Note: This would appear to contradict at least one other appeal decision – for further information see the entry in the “Reference Section” on “E.1(d)”].
[Relevant to: E.1(d)].


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


·       Appeal Decision Notice: 

·       OS Map 1: 

·       OS Map 2: 

·       Block Plan: 

·       Elevations: 




Download documents and diagrams of useful

Permitted Development information

permitted development documents download


 Appeal Decisions