Appeal Decision 10 - Certificate of Lawful Development.

July 2009- Code a00010  

Summary of Case (appeal dismissed): 

The property is a detached house.  The road runs north-south, and the property is situated to the east of this road, with a set-back of approx 30m.  The west wall of the property is relatively narrow, and consists of a former garage, now with a window.  One of the north walls of the property is relatively narrow and contains a secondary door.  The other north wall is relatively wide and contains a secondary door along with 2 patio doors and a window.  The main front door is in an inset area between the two north walls.

The application was for an outbuilding to the north-east of the house.  The key issue was whether the proposed outbuilding would be contrary to Class E, part E.1(b), which states that “Development is not permitted by Class E if … any part of the building, enclosure, pool or container would be situated on land forward of a wall forming the principal elevation of the original dwellinghouse”. 

The Council argued that the north wall is “the principal elevation” and that therefore the proposed outbuilding would be “situated on land forward of a wall forming the principal elevation of the original dwellinghouse” and would not be permitted development.  The appellant argued that the west wall was the principal elevation, and that therefore the outbuilding would be permitted development.

The Inspector acknowledged that background documents suggest that a property can have more than one principal elevation, but noted that such documents do not have the weight of the final version of the GPDO.  He concluded that the phrase “a wall forming the principal elevation” is singular, and therefore a property can only have one principal elevation.  Furthermore, the Inspector stated that this phrase can only be applied to a single wall, “meaning that 2 walls, even facing the same direction, cannot form a principal elevation”.

The Inspector acknowledged that the letter from CLG to local planning authorities dated 10/09/2008 stated that “the Order, therefore, simply specifies that a principal elevation fronts a highway”.  However, he concluded that this letter is factually incorrect, and that in some circumstances a side elevation can front a highway and a principal elevation need not do so.

The Inspector concluded that the Council’s approach to determine the “principal elevation” based on a dictionary definition of “principal” as “first in rank or importance; chief” is a reasonable one.  He stated that most frequently a house’s front door can be regarded as being on the principal elevation, but that this does not always need to be the case.  In this particular case, the Inspector decided that the north wall which is relatively wide and contains a secondary door along with 2 patio doors and a window (but not the main front door) is the principal elevation.

The Inspector then concluded that the proposed outbuilding would be forward of the line of this wall, and therefore not be permitted development.  Although not specifically stated by the Inspector, this conclusion also implies that the phrase “situated on land forward of a wall forming the principal elevation of the original dwellinghouse” applies not just to the area directly in front of the wall, but also to the area in front of the imaginary line of the wall when extended to either side. 

Main Conclusions: 

·       Only one elevation can constitute “the principal elevation”.
[Note: This would appear to contradict at least one other appeal decision – for further information see the entry in the “Reference Section” on “Principal Elevation”].
[Relevant to: “Principal Elevation”, A.1(d), B.1(b), E.1(b), F.1, G.1(b)]. 

·       This appeal decision provides an example of the types of factors that should be taken into consideration when determining which elevation is “the principal elevation”.
[Relevant to: “Principal Elevation”, A.1(d), B.1(b), E.1(b), F.1, G.1(b)].

 

·       Where the front elevation of a property is staggered, then only a single wall can form “the principal elevation”.
[Note: This would appear to contradict at least one other appeal decision – for further information see the entry in the “Reference Section” on “Principal Elevation”].
[Relevant to: “Principal Elevation”, A.1(d), B.1(b), E.1(b), F.1, G.1(b)]. 

·       The principal elevation is not necessarily the elevation that fronts a highway.
[Relevant to: “Principal Elevation”, A.1(d), B.1(b), E.1(b), F.1, G.1(b)]. 

·       The principal elevation is not necessarily the elevation that contains the main entrance.
[Relevant to: “Principal Elevation”, A.1(d), B.1(b), E.1(b), F.1, G.1(b)]. 

·       The phrase “situated on land forward of a wall forming the principal elevation of the original dwellinghouse” applies not just to the area directly in front of the wall, but also to the area in front of the imaginary line of the wall when extended to either side.
[Relevant to: E.1(b)]. 

Links to the “Appeal Decision Notice” and other associated documents (e.g. drawings, etc): 

·       Appeal Decision Notice:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00010-Appeal-Decision-Notice.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

·       Site Layout Plan:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00010-Site-Layout-Plan.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes