Permitted development rights: Part 1 Class C : whether works amounted to ‘enlargement’ ‘alteration’ or ‘alteration’ of roof

Attic Conversions Ltd v London Borough of Richmond upon Thames

Planning Inspector’s Appeal Decision

19 February 2021

https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewCase.aspx?caseid=3257461

file:///C:/Users/tlove/Downloads/Decision%203257461%20final.pdf

Roof extension was not permitted development as works were not an “addition”, “alteration” or “other alteration” to existing roof (Planning Inspectorate)

The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (SI 2015/596) (GPDO 2015) is effectively a national grant of planning permission.

Class B, Part 1, Schedule 2 to the GPDO 2015 grants deemed planning permission for “the enlargement of a dwellinghouse consisting of an addition or alteration to its roof”. Class C, Part 1, Schedule 2 grants deemed planning permission for “other alterations to the roof of a dwellinghouse”.

The appeal property was a detached, two-storey dwelling with a hipped roof on all sides and projecting hipped elements to the front and rear. The appellant proposed to change both side hips and parts of the front and rear hips to a gable shape on the sides and to construct a flat roof dormer within the rear roof. This involved the creation of a crown roof between the new side to side ridgelines.

The London Borough of Richmond-upon-Thames (RBC) refused to grant a lawful development certificate. RBC considered the proposed works went beyond “an addition or alteration” and amounted to demolition and re-construction and therefore did not fall to be considered against classes B and C.

The Inspector agreed with RBC and dismissed the appeal. As the words “addition”, “alteration” or “other alteration” were not defined in the GPDO 2015, it was a matter of fact and degree whether the proposal amounted to an “addition”, “alteration” or “other alteration”. The Inspector considered that as a substantial amount of the roof would be removed, the proposed works did not.

Summary from Practical Law

Source: PINS: APP/L5810/X/20/3257461 (19 February 2020).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

I accept that my given data and my IP address is sent to a server in the USA only for the purpose of spam prevention through the Akismet program.More information on Akismet and GDPR.