Appeal Decision 117 - 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
April 2010 - Code a00117
Summary of Case (appeal
The property is a detached
house set within large grounds. The application, which was received on 26/06/2010, was for an existing
outbuilding (“spa”). The road runs west-east, the property is to the north of this road with its front elevation
facing south, and the outbuilding is situated to the south-east of the property (i.e. not directly in front of
the principal elevation, but still in front of the imaginary line of this principal elevation when extended to
Firstly, the Inspector stated
“In determining the
application, the Council applied the current limitations of Class E which came into force on 1 October 2008 by
way of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No.2) (England) Order 2008.
The Appellant says that the building was commenced prior to this change in the legislation and that the
pre-existing limitations should have been applied. Whilst he draws attention to related correspondence from
August 2008, this talks of the erection of a garage block rather than the building as described in this
application – albeit in the same position. Nonetheless, following its refusal the Council has accepted that
the building was commenced before 1 October 2008 and that the pre-amendment limitations should be
The Inspector then concluded
that the outbuilding is not permitted development on the basis that it did not comply with one of the
limitations of the previous version of Part 1. However, the Inspector then also examined the hypothetical
situation of whether the outbuilding would accord with the amended version of Part 1. In doing so, the key issue
was whether the 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 Inspector stated the
“For the sake of
completeness, and looking at the Class E limitations which came into force on 1 October 2008, I consider that
had those limitations been applicable, the building would have offended limitation E.1(b) (as initially
determined by the Council) in that the building is situated on land forward of a wall forming the principal
elevation of the original dwellinghouse. The limitation does not say ‘between’ the principal elevation
and the highway or ‘to the front of’ the principal elevation. It says ‘on land forward of’ and that includes
land forward of but off to one side of a wall forming the principal elevation.”
Where an application is received
(on or after 01/10/2008) for existing works that were begun prior to 01/10/2008, then these existing works
should be assessed against the previous Part 1 of the GPDO.
[Relevant to: “Applications received on or after
01/10/2008 for works that were begun prior to 01/10/2008”].
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.
Links to the “Appeal
Decision Notice” and other associated documents (e.g. drawings, etc):
Download documents and diagrams of