Appeal Decision 68 - Certificate of Lawful Development.

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

23 December 2009 – 114 Town Road, London, N9 0RL  

Planning Inspectorate Reference: APP/Q5300/X/09/2106877 

Inspector: R O Evans BA(Hons) Solicitor MRTPI 

London Borough of Enfield Reference: LDC/09/0075 

Summary of Case (appeal allowed): 

The property is a two-storey mid-terrace house with an original two-storey rear projection.  The application was for a proposed “L”-shaped dormer, which would have been across both the rear roof of the main part of the house as well as the side roof of the original two-storey rear projection. 

Although no part of the proposed dormer would have exceeded the height of the main ridge-line of the house, the part of the dormer on the side roof of the original two-storey rear projection would have exceeded the height of the ridge-line of the latter structure. 

The first key issue was whether the proposed dormer would be contrary to Class B, part B.1(a), which states that “Development is not permitted by Class B if … any part of the dwellinghouse would, as a result of the works, exceed the height of the highest part of the existing roof”. 

The Inspector stated the following: 

“That provision [i.e. Class B, part B.1(a)] is in the same terms as it was before the October 2008 amendments to the Order. It was held in Hammersmith & Fulham LBC v Secretary of State for the Environment [1994] JPL 957 that, on the face of it, “the existing roof” referred to the roof of the house as a whole, and not just that of the (in that case, flat roof) extension. The present case coincidentally involves just such a Victorian house as the Court then envisaged might present difficulties if a different approach were taken, because of the complexity, or at least lack of uniformity, of the roof structures. The words in paragraph B.1(a) should therefore be taken as referring to the highest part of the roof of the dwellinghouse as a whole.” 

As the eaves of the original two-storey rear projection are at a lower level than the eaves of the main rear roof, the part where the dormer extends from the former roof to the latter roof would involve removing a section of the original eaves of the main rear roof. 

The second key issue was whether this 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 stated the following: 

“Development within Class B is permitted subject to the conditions in paragraph B.2. Condition B.2(b), on the which the Council also rely, now requires the edge of the enlargement closest to the eaves of the original roof to be not less than 20cm from them, but only “so far as reasonably practicable”. Because the dormer construction in this case would extend from one roof plane to the other, part of the eaves of the main roof would actually be removed. The “edge closest to the eaves” would also extend from one roof plane to the other, and thus at different levels, but can still be seen as a single entity. The submitted plans are not of sufficient scale or detail to assess the precise distance from the eaves but do indicate that the “edge” would run continuously above them. I see no reason therefore why “so far as reasonably practicable” this condition should not be met, albeit that it will be for the Appellant to show that it has been.”

 

Main Conclusions: 

·       The phrase “the highest part of the existing roof” refers to the house as a whole (i.e. the main ridge-line), and not just the part of the house where the works would be carried out.  As such, where a property has an original rear projection, a dormer on the roof of the latter structure is limited by the height of the main ridge-line of the house, and not by the height of the ridge-line of the original rear projection.
[Note: This would appear to contradict at least one other appeal decision – for further information see the entry in the “Contents” section on “Highest Part of the … Roof”].
[Relevant to: “Highest Part of the … Roof”, A.1(b), C.1(b), G.1(a), H.1(b)]. 

·       Where the eaves of an original two-storey rear projection are at a lower level than the eaves of the main rear roof, the requirement to be not less than 20cm from the eaves of the original roof would not prevent an “L”-shaped dormer that extends from the former roof to the latter roof.
[Relevant to: B.2(b)]. 

Link to case on Planning Inspectorate website: 

http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/ViewCase.asp?casename=APP/Q5300/X/09/2106877&caseaddress=COO.2036.300.8.1945744 

Link to LPA website: 

http://www.enfield.gov.uk 

Download documents and diagrams of useful

Permitted Development information