Inspector’s decision – https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewCase.aspx?caseid=3241865

16 April 2020

Appeal under s.195 TCPA 1990

Nanik Daswani v Council of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea 

Appeal ref:  3241865

paragraph 10:  “The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s publication ‘Permitted Development Rights for Householders’ Technical Guidance (September 2019) (TG) whilst not determinative provides a useful guide to interpretation of the GPDO. It provides guidance on the term ‘highest part of the roof’ and it states that it will be the height of the ridge line of the main roof (even though there may be other ridge lines at a lower level) or the height of the highest roof where roofs on a building are flat.”

paragraph 13:  “13. In this case parts of the roof are flat and parts are pitched. The TG does not give any assistance in defining what the highest part of the roof will be where there is both flat and pitched roofs. However, in this case the mono-pitch roof only constitutes part of the overall roof form. Moreover, there are a number of flat roofs to the building and cumulatively they comprise the majority of that overall roof form. The highest flat roof is the flat part of the roof directly above the access door/stairs. As such, it is reasonable to consider that the roof over
that access door/stairs is the highest part of the roof.”

paragraph 14. “It follows that the proposed chimney stack would meet the limitation at paragraph G.1 (b). In the absence of any evidence that the proposal would fail to meet any other limitation under Class G I find that the construction of the chimney stack would constitute development which is permitted under Article 3, Schedule 2, Part 1 of the GPDO.”