Appeal Decision 110 - Certificate of Lawful Development.
This appeal decision summary and
assessment has been produced by Planning Jungle Limited. For more information, please go to www.planningjungle.com/?p=20
March 2010 - Code a00110
Summary of Case (appeal
The property is a detached
house with an original single storey side projection. The application was for a proposed first floor extension
on top of the latter structure.
The Council refused the
applicant on the basis that the proposed extension would be contrary to Class A, part A.1(d) and Class A, part
The Inspector stated the
“Examination of the plans
submitted reveals that the existing kitchen has a wall that fronts the highway and that wall is shown to extend
beyond the immediately adjoining front wall of the rest of the house by 900mm or thereabouts. In comparison the
front wall of the new extension at first floor level is shown as projecting beyond the same adjoining wall by
1000mm or thereabouts. Although there are no figured dimensions on the plans there is a difference that scales
100mm. It seems likely that the difference identified is a slip in drafting the drawing because the proposed
side elevation shows the relevant wall at first floor level contiguous with the ground floor beneath.
Whether there is an
unintended error or not, the plans as drawn demonstrate a projection that is shown by paragraph A1 (d) as
development that is not permitted. The onus of proof lies with the appellant. In all the circumstances of
this case a Certificate cannot be issued and the appeal must fail.”
As stated above, from the
submitted floor plans it appeared that the proposed first floor extension on top of the original single storey
side projection would have projected 100mm further forward (i.e. nearer the highway) than the latter structure.
Even though the Inspector acknowledged that this 100mm projection appeared to be a drafting error (as it was not
shown on the submitted side elevations) he concluded that the applicant had thereby failed to demonstrate that
the proposals would accord with Class A, part A.1(d).
[Note: In my
opinion, the following question, which was almost addressed by this appeal decision, is particularly
Question: Where a property has an original single storey side
projection, would a first floor extension directly on top of the latter structure be contrary to Class A, part
A.1(h) … ? For reference, this limitation states that “Development is not permitted by Class A if … the enlarged
part of the dwellinghouse would extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse, and
would— … (ii) have more than one storey …”
1: Suppose the “side elevation of the original
dwellinghouse” is taken to be the (straight) vertical plane level with the outer wall of the original single
storey side projection. If this is the case, then the first floor side extension would not extend beyond this
plane, therefore would not be contrary to the above limitation, and therefore would be permitted
2: Suppose the “side elevation of the original
dwellinghouse” is taken to be stepped vertically, so that at ground floor level it is the outer wall of the
original single storey side projection, whilst at first floor level it is the main flank wall of the house. If
this is the case, then the first floor side extension would extend beyond the latter, therefore would be
contrary to the above limitation, and therefore would not be permitted development
above question is relevant to the above appeal, it was not answered by the Inspector as he had already concluded
that the extension would be contrary to another limitation].
In an application for a
certificate of lawfulness, the burden of proof is firmly on the
[Relevant to: "General”].
Links to the “Appeal
Decision Notice” and other associated documents (e.g. drawings, etc):
Download documents and diagrams of