Appeal Decision 39 - Certificate of Lawful Development.

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

10 November 2009 – 13 Fairacres Close, Potters Bar, EN6 2LT  

Planning Inspectorate Reference: APP/N1920/X/09/2100265 

Inspector: Bridget M Campbell BA(Hons) MRTPI 

Hertsmere Borough Council Reference: TP/08/2002 

Summary of Case (appeal dismissed): 

The property is a detached bungalow.  It has a pitched roof with the ridge running parallel to the front and rear elevations with hipped ends to the sides. To the front, bedroom one projects forward of the front main wall of the dwelling and this is topped with a lower pitched roof with a hipped end to the front and a ridge running back to join the main roof.  The development proposed is to extend the ridge of the main roof to both sides and in so doing increase the slope of the side facing hipped ends. A dormer would be inserted in the enlarged rear roof slope. To the front, the roof over bedroom one would be raised in height so that the angles of the roof would correspond to those on the main roof. 

The key issue was whether the proposed increase in height to bedroom one 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 stated the following: 

In raising the ridge to the roof over bedroom one, that roof would increase in size. That resultant increase to the size of the dwellinghouse would sit forward of the front plane of the main roof of the dwelling which forms part of the principal elevation and which fronts a highway. The limitation does not say “forward of the forward-most roof facing a highway” - the interpretation which the Appellant seeks to establish; but rather it says “… extend beyond the plane of any existing roof slope which forms the principal elevation …” 

The Inspector concluded that the proposed increase in height to bedroom one was therefore contrary to Class B, part B.1(b). 

Main Conclusions: 

·       It is not true that just because a front-facing roof slope is behind another (smaller) front-facing roof slope, that the former can’t form part of “the principal elevation”.
[Relevant to: “Principal Elevation”, A.1(d), B.1(b), E.1(b), F.1, G.1(b)]. 

Link to case on Planning Inspectorate website: 

http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/ViewCase.asp?casename=APP/N1920/X/09/2100265&caseaddress=COO.2036.300.8.1430436 

Link to LPA website: 

http://www.hertsmere.gov.uk 

Download documents and diagrams of useful

Permitted Development information