Appeal Decision 42 - Certificate of Lawful Development.

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

17 November 2009 – 14 Fairfax Road, Teddington, Middlesex, TW11 9DH  

Planning Inspectorate Reference: APP/L5810/X/09/2105421 and APP/L5810/X/09/2110592 

Inspector: Brian Cook BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI 

London Borough of Richmond-upon-Thames Reference: 09/0360/S192 and 09/1301/S192 

Summary of Case (mixed decisions): 

The property is a two-storey end-of-terrace house, with an original single storey rear projection, on top of which a first floor rear extension (with a flat roof) has subsequently been added.  The application was for a proposed rear dormer with a door leading to a roof terrace on top of the existing first floor rear extension, and two outbuildings in the rear garden.  One of the differences between the two applications (and two appeals) was that the two outbuildings were described as a “home office” and “orangery” in Appeal A, but an “outbuilding” (i.e. for an unspecified purpose) and “orangery” in Appeal B. 

The first key issue was whether the proposed rear dormer would be contrary to Class B, part B.2(b), which states that “other than in the case of a hip-to-gable enlargement, the edge of the enlargement closest to the eaves of the original roof shall, so far as practicable, be not less than 20 centimetres from the eaves of the original roof”.

 

The Inspector noted that the proposed rear dormer would be built straight up on top of the main rear wall, and that one of the submitted drawings showed that this would give a set-back of 20cm from the eaves, with a strip of projecting eaves remaining.  However, he also noted that some of the other submitted drawings indicated that at least part of this strip of projecting eaves would be removed, such that the rear dormer would rise straight up from the main rear wall without any interruption.  The Inspector concluded that in order for the proposals to comply with Class B, part B.2(b), there would need to remain “a continuous [at least] 20cm strip of roof slope”. 

The Inspector noted that “the onus of proof in a LDC application is firmly on the applicant”, and concluded that this part of the appeals should be dismissed on the basis that the applicant had not shown that the proposals would comply with Class B, part B.2(b). 

Main Conclusions: 

·       In order for a dormer extension to comply with Class B, part B.2(b), there would need to remain a continuous strip of at least 20cm of projecting eaves.  This would imply that it is not possible to comply with this condition by having a dormer that is set-back 20cm from the edge of the original eaves where the latter has been removed.
[Relevant to: B.2(b)]. 

·       The onus of proof is firmly on the applicant, and if some of the submitted drawings show a 20cm set-back but other submitted drawings show no set-back, then the application should be refused.
[Relevant to: B.2(b)]. 

Link to case on Planning Inspectorate website: 

http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/ViewCase.asp?casename=APP/L5810/X/09/2105421&caseaddress=COO.2036.300.8.1826776 

Link to LPA website: 

http://www.richmond.gov.uk 

Download documents and diagrams of useful

Permitted Development information