The appeal building was more than 7m long and almost 4m wide. The parties agreed that it complied with all but one of the criteria in class E, part 1, schedule 2 of the General Permitted Development Order 1995. The dispute focused on whether the building had a pitched roof and so qualified for the 4m height limit specified under class E(1)(d)(i).
The appellants contended that the mono-pitched roof did have a ridge and that since this was only 3.75m high the building fell within this part of class E. But the inspector took the view that it was necessary for two opposite slopes to meet at the top to create a ridge. As its height exceeded the 3m limit specified for non-ridged roofs in class E(1)(d)(ii), he reasoned, it was not permitted development.
But after examining the merits of the case, he decided that the building was not visually discordant and did not undermine neighbours' amenity.
He granted permission subject to a condition stating that it should be used only for purposes incidental to the residential use of the house.
DCS No: 100039198; Inspector: Derek Thew; Inquiry.