Appeal Decision 11 - Certificate of Lawful Development.

July 2009 - Code a00011  

Summary of Case (appeal dismissed): 

The property is a two-storey house with an original single storey rear projection.  The latter covers only part of the width of the rear of the house, and projects 3m (approx), before narrowing further and then projecting a further 3m (approx).  The application was for an extension that would have replaced all of the above with a full-width rear extension, projecting to a point 1.35m further than the rearmost part of the original single storey rear projection. 

The key issue was whether the proposals would be contrary to Class A, part A.1(e), which states that “development is not permitted by Class A if … the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would … extend beyond the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse by more than … 3 metres”.

The appellant argued that, in the context of part A.1 (e), “rear wall” means only the rearmost wall of the original single storey rear projection. 

The Inspector disagreed with the appellant’s argument, and stated the following: 

“The term [rear wall] is not defined in the GPDO and must be interpreted in a purposive manner. The intention of Part 1 of the GPDO is to remove from planning control alterations to dwellings which are unlikely to cause substantial harm, among other things, to the living conditions of neighbours. The purpose of Limitation (e) is to restrict the impact which permitted development extensions can have on neighbours. To do this, it limits the amount by which extensions can project at the back. 

[The application site] has more than one wall which could be regarded as a rear wall. The rear-most wall of the single-storey projection clearly falls into this category. However, in my opinion, so do the short length of rear facing wall where this projection narrows at the end of the kitchen and the two-storey rear wall of the main house. 

In my view, all three of these sections of wall comprise rear walls for the purposes of Limitation (e). What is relevant is the rear wall on the part of the building that is being extended from. Any other interpretation would be 

inconsistent with the intention and purpose of the Limitation as it would allow the erection of a very long and potentially unneighbourly extension on the boundary of a property provided that there is a substantial rear projection elsewhere on the rear elevation, notwithstanding that this projection may be well away from the boundary.” 

[Note: This appeal decision supports several conclusions.  Firstly, the Inspector concludes that where a property has an original rear projection, then there will be more than one wall that constitutes “the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse”.  Secondly, the Inspector concludes that, in such a situation, even a relatively short width of rear facing wall will be a “rear wall of the original dwellinghouse”.  And thirdly, the Inspector concludes that even where the original rear projection is an “outhouse” type projection that is only accessible externally, the rear wall of this projection will still be a “rear wall of the original dwellinghouse”]. 

Main Conclusions: 

·       Where a property has a (part-width) original rear projection, then there will be more than one wall that constitutes “the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse” for the purposes of Class A, part A.1(e).  This means that where the original rear elevation of a property is stepped, the 3m/4m rear projection limit will be similarly stepped.
[Note: This would appear to contradict at least one other appeal decision – for further information see the entry in the “Reference Section” on “The rear wall of the original dwellinghouse”].
[Relevant to: “The rear wall of the original dwellinghouse”, A.1(e), A.1(f), A.2(c)]. 

·       Where a property has an original rear projection, then even if this is only single storey, the rear wall of this projection is still a “rear wall of the original dwellinghouse” for the purposes of Class A, part A.1(e).
[Relevant to: “The rear wall of the original dwellinghouse”, A.1(e), A.1(f), A.2(c)].

 

·       Where a property has a (part-width) original rear projection, even a relatively short width of rear facing wall will be a “rear wall of the original dwellinghouse” for the purposes of Class A, part A.1(e).
[Relevant to: “The rear wall of the original dwellinghouse”, A.1(e), A.1(f), A.2(c)]. 

·       Where a property has an original rear projection, then even if this is an “outhouse” type projection that is only accessible externally, the rear wall of this projection is still a “rear wall of the original dwellinghouse” for the purposes of Class A, part A.1(e).
[Relevant to: “The rear wall of the original dwellinghouse”, A.1(e), A.1(f), A.2(c)].

 

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

·       Appeal Decision Notice:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00011-Appeal-Decision-Notice.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

·       OS Map:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00011-OS-Map.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

·       Existing Drawings:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00011-Existing-Drawings.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

·       Proposed Drawings:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00011-Proposed-Drawings.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes