The appellants claimed that the garage was permitted development under class E, part 1, schedule 2 of the General Permitted Development Order 1995 as amended because the roof had a dual pitch and could extend to 4m in height. The council argued that its four pitches took it outside class E and so the maximum height should be limited to 3m.
Each side of the roof had two distinct planes. The garage had a quadruple pitched roof, the inspector reasoned. He found little support for the appellants' case in technical guidance on the interpretation of permitted development rights for householders. It was not permitted because it did not have a dual-pitched roof, he held.
On the planning merits, he considered that the roof design was a departure from the prevailing townscape, where dwelling roofs were either dual-pitched or hipped. The roof was visible from considerable distances and a pitched roof of similar height would appear less bulky and prominent, he concluded.
The design was inappropriate to its context, he decided. In the absence of a detailed drawing showing an amended roof design that would comply with the dual pitch requirement of class E, he noted, the council was entitled to seek demolition of the entire building. In his view, it was inappropriate to specify that the appellants should comply with class E since this would lead to uncertainty on what was required.
DCS Number 100-069-596
Inspector Alan Woolnough; Written representations.