Appeal Decision 25 - Certificate of Lawful Development.
This appeal decision summary and
assessment has been produced by Planning Jungle Limited. For more information, please go to www.planningjungle.com/?p=20
- Code a00025
Summary of Case (appeal
The property is a two-storey
mid-terrace house, and the application was for a proposed rear dormer. The existing roof of the property has a
main ridge-line with a raised parapet wall on either side. The flat roof of the proposed rear dormer would have
been at the same height as the main ridge-line, and along the side edges of the flat roof of the dormer there
would have been raised parapet walls at the same height as the raised parapet walls on the main roof.
The key issue was whether these new parapet walls, which would be at the same height as the existing parapet walls,
would “exceed the height of the highest part of the existing roof”. It should be noted that this appeal was
assessed against the previous GPDO; however this issue is still directly relevant to Class B, part B.1(a) of the
amended GPDO, 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”.
The Inspector concluded that “the highest part of the existing roof” is the main ridge-line of the property, as
formed by the ridge tiles along the apex at the join of the front and rear roof slopes. He stated that this phrase
does not include such raised parapet walls, and does not apply to chimneys.
For a property with a pitched or
hipped roof, “the highest part of the existing roof” is the main ridge-line, and does not include raised parapet walls or
[Relevant to: “Highest
Part of the … Roof”, A.1(b), C.1(b), G.1(a), H.1(b)].
Links to the “Appeal Decision
Notice” and other associated documents (e.g. drawings, etc):
· Appeal Decision
Download documents and diagrams of