Appeal Decision 77 - Certificate of Lawful Development.

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

13 January 2010 – 150 Castle Road, Northolt, Middlesex, UB5 4SF  

Planning Inspectorate Reference: APP/A5270/X/09/2109105 

Inspector: Antony Fussey JP BSc(Hons) DipTP MRTPI 

London Borough of Ealing Reference: P/2009/1381 

Summary of Case (appeal dismissed): 

The property is a two-storey semi-detached house with a hipped roof.  The application was for a proposed hip-to-gable roof extension, a rear dormer, and three front rooflights.  The new gabled end would have included a side window, which was not annotated on the submitted drawings as obscure glazed. 

The key issue was whether the proposed new side window would be contrary to Class B, part B.2(c), which states the following:

“Development is permitted by Class B subject to the following conditions— 

… 

(c) any window inserted on a wall or roof slope forming a side elevation of the dwellinghouse shall be— 

(i) obscure-glazed, and 

(ii) non-opening unless the parts of the window which can be opened are more than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which the window is installed.” 

The Inspector stated the following: 

“There is no notation on the plans to show that the window would be obscure glazed. Whether or not the existing window on this elevation is obscure glazed does not demonstrate that the new window would be as well. The appellant says that this requirement could be specified, but there is no provision to grant an LDC subject to conditions and the Council was right to rely on the submitted plans as showing the appellant’s exact intentions and to determine the application on their basis. They do not show that condition (c)(i) would be met, and therefore the Council was right to conclude that for this reason the proposal would not be lawful in terms of Class B.” 

This appeal decision also dealt with the issue of whether the proposed rear dormer would need to be set-away from the side edge of the new gable by at least 20cm.  The Inspector concluded that there was no such requirement. 

Main Conclusions: 

·       A certificate of lawful development should be refused if the applicant has not demonstrated full compliance with all of the conditions of the Class. 
[Note: This would appear to contradict at least one other appeal decision – for further information see the entry in the “Contents” section on “Conditions”].
[Relevant to: “Conditions”, A.3(a), A.3(b), A.3(c), B.2(a), B.2(b), B.2(c), C.2, F.1, H.2(a), H.2(b)]. 

·       For example, if new side windows at an upper level are not shown as obscure glazed and non-opening, then the application should be refused.
[Note: This would appear to contradict at least one other appeal decision – for further information see the entry in the “Contents” section on “Conditions”].
[Relevant to: “Conditions”, A.3(b), B.2(c), C.2]. 

Link to case on Planning Inspectorate website: 

http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/ViewCase.asp?casename=APP/A5270/X/09/2109105&caseaddress=COO.2036.300.8.2135037 

Link to LPA website: 

www.ealing.gov.uk 

Download documents and diagrams of useful

Permitted Development information