Permitted development rights misinterpreted in dormer dispute

A LDC was denied to the owner of a dwelling in east Sussex who sought confirmation that a dormer extension was permitted development because it exceeded permitted development limits.

The semi-detached property had been enlarged through single storey additions at the rear and a two storey extension at the side which had a hipped roof. Second floor accommodation was then provided within the extended roof and the appellant sought confirmation that a flat-roofed dormer window inserted into the rear roof slope which extended the second floor accommodation was permitted under Class B of Part 1 to Schedule 2 of the GPDO 2008. She stated that the volume of the dormer and the extended roof exceeded the 50m3 tolerance under condition B.1(c) by less than 3m3. But she claimed that for the purposes of applying Class B the volume of the roof of the two storey extension should not be included within the calculation because it had been created under Class A permitted development rights.

An inspector found no basis in law for drawing such a distinction. The technical guidance published by government made clear that in considering if a development was permitted all parts of the order should be taken into account. Parliament intended that additions to the roof of a house were subject to the cumulative limit of 50m3 irrespective of whether space had been formed under differing parts of the order. Consequently, since the cumulative threshold was exceeded the flat-roofed dormer was not permitted development.

Inspector Alan Woolnough; Written representations

DCS Number 400-002-344

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