Certificate of Lawful Development Appeal Decisions by category of development.

The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995
Part 1 (as amended on 1 October 2008) 

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

Class B development

B.1(a):  

·       Xxx 

B.1(b): 

·       See entries under separate heading “Principal Elevation”. 

·       See entries relating to the phrase “fronts a highway” under separate heading “A.1(d)”. 

B.1(c): 

·       Where two properties are angled, such that their side walls are separated at the front but are joined towards the rear by a common party wall (in this case by an original two storey block of a size considered to be not trivial or insignificant) then this can be sufficient for the properties to be considered as sharing a party wall for the purposes of the definition of a “terrace house”.
[Source 13 July 2009 – 18 and 20 Woodberry Gardens]. 

B.1(d): 

·       See entries relating to soil and vent pipes under separate heading “Class G”. 

·       See entries relating to “Juliette balcony” under separate heading “A.1(i)”. 

B.1(e): 

·       Xxx 

B.2(a): 

·       See entries under separate heading “Conditions”. 

·       See entries relating to the phrase “of a similar appearance” under separate heading “B.2(a)”. 

·       The use of felt (or similar) for the flat roof of a dormer (assuming that the visibility of the roof would be limited) would not be contrary to Class B, part B.2(a).  The Inspector indicates (or implies) that the felt would not need to have a similar colour to the materials on the existing house.
[Note: This contradicts the entry below].
[Source: 24 July 2009 – 14 North Road Avenue].
[Source: 30 October 2009 – 17 Wynchlands Crescent].
[Source: 26 November 2009 – 10 Neild Way].
[Source: 1 December 2009 – 84 Greenside Road].
[Source: 1 December 2009 – 84 South Norwood Hill].
[Source: 9 December 2009 – 28 Parker Avenue].
[Source: 9 December 2009 – 82 Melbourn Road].
[Source: 16 December 2009 – 17 Glemsford Drive].
[Source: 15 February 2010 – 81 Beech Drive]. 

·       The use of felt (or similar) for the flat roof of a dormer (assuming that the visibility of the roof would be limited) would not (in principle) be contrary to Class B, part B.2(a).  However, the Inspector indicates (or implies) that the felt would need to have a similar colour to the materials on the existing house.
[Note: This contradicts the entry above].
[Source: 9 December 2009 – 3 St Andrews Park Road].
[Source: 22 December 2009 – 2a Willoughby Road].
[Source: 15 January 2010 – 53 Parnel Road].
[Source: 10 March 2010 – 249 High Street]. 

·       Class B, part B.2(a) means that the proposed materials must be “of a similar appearance” to the materials used in the external construction of the house generally.  It does not mean that the proposed materials must be of a similar appearance to the predominant materials of the house, nor does it mean that the proposed materials must be of a similar appearance to those used on a particular part of the house (for example, the part which is being extended).
[Source: 22 December 2009 – 2a Willoughby Road]. 

B.2(b): 

·       See entries under separate heading “Conditions”. 

·       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.  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.
[Source: 17 November 2009 – 14 Fairfax Road].
[Source: 4 March 2010 – 34 Sandy Lane]. 

·       It is not possible to comply with Class B, part B.2(b) if the original eaves have been removed.
[Source: 1 February 2010 – 136 Wood Lane].
[Source: 4 March 2010 – 34 Sandy Lane].
[Source: 12 May 2010 – 20 Grosvenor Vale]. 

·       Furthermore, where the original eaves have been removed, it is not possible to comply with Class B, part B.2(b) by reintroducing the eaves.
[Source: 4 March 2010 – 34 Sandy Lane]. 

·       The term “eaves” applies to all of the section of the roof overhanging the wall, and not just to the outer edge of this section.  As such, the 20cm set back should be measured from the point where the vertical plane of the wall meets the slope of the roof, rather than the outer edge of the sloping roof.
[Source: 1 February 2010 – 136 Wood Lane]. 

·       The assessment of whether a 20cm set-back is practicable should focus on structural and practical considerations, rather than economic factors.
[Source: 5 November 2009 – 29 Albany Road]. 

·       Where an applicant claims that a 20cm set-back is not practicable, the burden of proof is firmly on the applicant to demonstrate that such a set-back is not practicable, for example by providing structural calculations, rather than for the Council to seek an opinion from its Building Control section.
[Source: 5 November 2009 – 29 Albany Road]. 

·       The desire to have greater floor space in a proposed roof extension is not a sound basis to show that a 20cm set-back is not practicable.
[Source: 5 November 2009 – 29 Albany Road].
[Source: 5 January 2010 – 49 Popes Grove]. 

·       The fact that the 20cm set-back of a roof extension would result in additional cost or delay is not sufficient in itself to justify that such a set-back would not be “practicable”.
[Source: 28 August 2009 – 25 Malta Road]. 

·       For a proposed rear dormer, the Inspector concluded that it was insufficient for the applicant to simply show a 20cm set-back from the eaves of the original roof (with an annotation confirming this) without also demonstrating that such a set-back is practicable to construct, for example by considering the size, type, and gauge of the roof tile.
[Note: In my opinion, the above conclusion is questionable, because LPAs do not normally require applicants to submit construction details to demonstrate that what is shown on the submitted plans can actually be built].
[Source: 24 August 2009 – 203 Garden Wood Road]. 

·       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.
[Source: 23 December 2009 – 114 Town Road].
[Source: 1 February 2010 – 36 Ladysmith Road]. 

B.2(c): 

·       See entries under separate heading “Conditions”. 

·       See entries under separate heading “A side elevation of the original dwellinghouse”. 

B.3: 

·       xxx 

Download documents and diagrams of useful

Permitted Development information