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 27 - Certificate of Lawful Development.

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

September 2009 - Code a00027


Summary of Case (appeal allowed):  


The property is a semi-detached house, 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decision on the basis of the DCLG - Informal Views from Communities and Local Government” (Dec 2008, updated Jan 2009, superseded Aug 2010), which states that “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, any person 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.2(a) [materials], B.2(b) [set-back from eaves], and B.2(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 Conclusions: 


·       Only one elevation can constitute “the principal elevation”.
[Note: This would appear to contradict at least one other appeal decision – for further information see the entry in the “Reference Section” on “Principal Elevation”].
[Relevant to: “Principal Elevation”, A.1(d), B.1(b), E.1(b), F.1, G.1(b)].


·       This appeal decision provides an example of the types of factors that should be taken into consideration when determining which elevation is “the principal elevation”.
[Relevant to: “Principal Elevation”, A.1(d), B.1(b), E.1(b), F.1, G.1(b)].


·       The principal elevation is not necessarily the elevation that contains the main entrance.
[Relevant to: “Principal Elevation”, A.1(d), B.1(b), E.1(b), F.1, G.1(b)].


·       A certificate of lawful development should be refused if the applicant has not demonstrated full compliance with all of the conditions of the Class.
[Note: This would appear to contradict at least one other appeal decision – for further information see the entry in the “Reference Section” on “Conditions”].
[Relevant to: “Conditions”, A.3(a), A.3(b), A.3(c), B.2(a), B.2(b), B.2(c), C.2, F.1, H.2(a), H.2(b)].


·       For example, if new side windows at an upper level are not shown as obscure glazed and non-opening, then the application should be refused.
[Note: This would appear to contradict at least one other appeal decision – for further information see the entry in the “Reference Section” on “Conditions”].
[Relevant to: “Conditions”, A.3(b), B.2(c), C.2].


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


·       Appeal Decision Notice: 

·       Aerial Photo: 





Download documents and diagrams of useful

Permitted Development information

permitted development documents download

 Appeal Decisions