The council had granted planning permission in 2008 for various alterations, including a two-storey side extension and a rear dormer. The appellant accepted that the dormer as built was larger than that approved because of the need to include a staircase to comply with building regulations. However, he alleged that it was permitted under class B, part 1, schedule 2 of the General Permitted Development Order 1995 as amended because it did not project beyond the highest part of the ridge or front a highway.
The inspector agreed that in isolation the dormer would be permitted development. However, he judged that it was physically inseparable from the main roof of the house, which had been altered to allow construction of the side extension. The evidence indicated that all the alterations were undertaken as part of one operation, he held. Since the side extension was not permitted development, it followed that the dormer was not lawful.
DCS Number 100-069-010
Inspector James Ellis; Written representations.