The appellant claimed that the dormer was permitted under class B, part
1, schedule 2 of the General Permitted Development Order 2008, which
requires roof enlargements to be at least 20 centimetres behind the
eaves of the original roof. The council disagreed, on the grounds that
the dormer was less than 20 centimetres behind an imaginary line drawn
upwards from the edge of the rear wall.
It relied on a previous decision from February 2010 (
) that adopted similar reasoning. But the inspector noted
that this earlier decision pre-dated the Department for Communities and
Local Government's August 2010 technical guidance on householder
permitted development rights. This explains that the 20 centimetre
distance has to be measured along the original roof slope. On that
basis, he found that the setback distance complied with the order.
The inspector determined that the appellant was entitled to costs
because another appeal decision (
) gave a similar
interpretation in March 2011, more than two months before the present
notice was issued. It was incumbent upon the council to explain why it
had not followed the same reasoning, he found.
Inspector: Tim Belcher; Written representations