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 39 - Certificate of Lawful Development.

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

November 2009 - Code a00039


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: 


·       Where a front-facing roof slope is set back behind a forward projecting structure, then the former can still form part of “the principal elevation”.
[Relevant to: “Principal Elevation”, A.1(d), B.1(b), E.1(b), F.1, G.1(b)].


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


·       Appeal Decision Notice: 

·       Proposed Elevations: 






Download documents and diagrams of useful

Permitted Development information

permitted development documents download

 Appeal Decisions