Appeal Decision 28 - Certificate of Lawful Development.

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

5 October 2009 - 225 Alnwick Road, Eltham, London SE12 9BU

Planning Inspectorate Reference: APP/E5330/X/09/2101779

London Borough of Greenwich Reference: 08/2657/CP

Summary of Case (appeal allowed):

·      The property is a two-storey end-of-terrace property, and the application was for a hip-to-gable roof extension and a rear dormer.  The four houses making up the terrace stand at a 45 degree angle to Alnwick Road to the south and Paston Crescent to the east.

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 Council argued that, for this property, both the front roof slope and the side roof slope constitute a principal elevation.

The Inspector acknowledged the “Informal Views from CLG” document (December 2008), which states that “in the vast majority of cases” the principal elevation will be “the part of the house that fronts the highway and which usually contains the main entrance”, but that in a minority of cases there will have to be an assessment of “what constitutes the principal elevation”.  The Inspector concluded that the word “elevation” is singular, and that there can only be one principal elevation.  He noted that,, in this particular case, although the side elevation has a larger surface area than the front elevation, the former is a largely blank expanse of wall, apart from one small window, whilst the latter contains a projecting gable to roof level, the main windows, and the main entrance within the projecting porch.  He therefore concluded that, in this particular case, the front elevation is the “principal” elevation, and allowed the appeal.

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]

Link to case on Planning Inspectorate website:

http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/ViewCase.asp?casename=APP/E5330/X/09/2101779&caseaddress=COO.2036.300.8.1545640

Download documents and diagrams of useful

Permitted Development information