DC Casebook: Householder development - Inspector looks for roof design options

An inspector has refused to confirm that a first-floor extension to a dwelling in the West Midlands is permitted development out of concern over the design of its roof.

The appeal centred on the interpretation of condition A.3(b) in class A, part 1, schedule 2 of the General Permitted Development Order 1995 as amended. This states that where the enlarged part of a dwellinghouse has more than one storey, the roof pitch of the enlarged part should as far as practicable be the same as the roof pitch on the original dwellinghouse.

The appellant contended that the term "so far as practicable" had a vague meaning and each application had to be assessed on its merits. The council responded that the intention of the condition is to ensure that two-storey and first-floor extensions have pitched roofs to ensure satisfactory integration with the host dwelling.

The inspector decided that the burden of proof lay with the appellant. Since no information on alternatives to the proposed parapet wall with a flat roof behind had been submitted, she could not be sure that other roof designs more closely matching the pitched roof were impracticable. The parapet would not disguise the underlying flat nature of the design, she concluded.

DCS Number 100-068-965

Inspector Janice Chance; Written representations.


Have you registered with us yet?

Register now to enjoy more articles and free email bulletins

Sign up now
Already registered?
Sign in

Join the conversation with PlanningResource on social media

Follow Us:
Planning Jobs