Appeal Decision 26 - Certificate of Lawful Development.

The following appeal summary has been written by Steve Speed, and is available on his website www.planningjungle.com

23 September 2009 - 71 Ashgrove Road, Ashford, Middlesex TW15 1NY

Planning Inspectorate Reference: APP/Z3635/X/09/2096895

Spelthorne Borough Council Reference: 08/00851/CPD

Summary of Case (appeal allowed):

·      The property is a semi-detached property, and the application was for a hip-to-gable roof extension and a rear dormer.  Both of these semi-detached properties front Ashgrove Road, and on each property this elevation contains a large ground floor bay window and a first floor window.  The application site also fronts Beaumont Road, and this elevation contains the main entrance and garage (on the adjoining semi-detached property the main entrance faces a driveway separating it from another property).

The key issue is whether the proposed hip-to-gable extension would be contrary to Class B, part B.1(b), which states that “development is not permitted by Class B if … any part of the dwellinghouse would, as a result of the works, extend beyond the plane of any existing roof slope which forms the principal elevation of the dwellinghouse and fronts a highway”.

The Inspector noted that both the Council and the appellant agreed that there can only be one “principal” elevation, and he did not dispute this statement.

The Council argued that, for this property, the elevation fronting Beaumont Road constitutes the principal elevation, and justified this decision on the basis of the “Informal Views from CLG” document (December 2008), which states that “in the vast majority of cases it would be perfectly clear what the principal elevation was i.e. the part of the house that fronts the highway and which usually contains the main entrance”.  The Inspector disagreed with this argument.  He stated that the two windows fronting Ashgrove Road are what would normally be expected to be found on a front elevation.   He stated that, in his mind, a nyperson viewing the property would conclude that the entrance was to ‘the side or flank’ of the house, and the elevation fronting Ashgrove Road was the front and main elevation of the house and pair of semi-detached dwellings.

As a separate issue, the Inspector noted that Class B contains conditions B.1(a) [materials], B.1(b) [set-back from eaves], and B.1(c) [side windows obscure glazed and non-opening].  He stated that a certificate of lawful development can not be issued subject to conditions, and dismissed the appeal on the basis that the submitted drawing did not show the side window to be obscure glazed and non-opening.

Main Conclusion:

·      Only one elevation can constitute “the principal elevation”.  (Note: This would appear to contradict the appeal decision dated 22 May 2009 for 27 St Werburgh’s Road).
[Relevant to: A.1(b), B.1(b), E.1(b), F.1(a), G.1(b), Principal Elevation]

·      The principal elevation does not necessarily need to contain the main entrance.
[Relevant to: A.1(b), B.1(b), E.1(b), F.1(a), G.1(b), Principal Elevation]

·      A certificate of lawful development shouldbe refused if the submitted drawings do not demonstrate compliance with all of the conditions of the Class (for example, new side windows at an upper level must be annotated as obscure glazed and non-opening).
[Relevant to: A.3(a), A.3(b), A.3(c), B.2(a), B.2(b), B.2(c), C.2(a), C.2(b), F.1(a), F.1(b), H.2(a), H.2(b), Conditions]

Link to case on Planning Inspectorate website:

http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/ViewCase.asp?casename=APP/Z3635/X/09/2096895&caseaddress=COO.2036.300.8.1188482

Download documents and diagrams of useful

Permitted Development information