Appeal Decision 121 - 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
June 2010 - Code a00121
Summary of Case (appeal
The property is a two-storey
semi-detached house with an original two-storey rear projection.
Directly to the rear of the latter structure, there is an existing single storey rear extension. The application would have removed the latter extension, and would have
erected a large outbuilding detached from the rear wall of the original two-storey rear projection by just
5cm. The outbuilding would have covered the full width of
the site, and would have had length 8m. An inward-opening door in
the rear elevation of the original two-storey rear projection would have been within very close proximity to an
inward-opening door in the outbuilding, allowing direct access between the two structures, although no part of
the two structures would touch. Please see the submitted drawings
for further information.
The key issue was whether a
structure in such close proximity to the main house would fall under Class A, which relates to “The enlargement,
improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse”, or under Class E, which relates to “The provision within
the curtilage of the dwellinghouse of … any building …”.
The Inspector stated the
“The Council has argued
that because of the building’s very close proximity to the existing dwelling it cannot be regarded as a separate
structure, but more properly as an enlargement of the existing dwelling which would fall to be considered under
Class A of Part 1 of Schedule 2. If so regarded, the building would not be permitted under Class A because it
would extend beyond the rear wall of the original dwelling house by more than 3 metres (Class A.1
Before October 2008, any
curtilage building of more than 10 cubic metres constructed within 5 metres of the existing dwelling would have
been treated as an enlargement of the dwellinghouse and so considered under Class A. That limitation was explicitly removed from the GPDO amendments which
came into force in October 2008. The submitted drawing of the proposed building clearly and unambiguously shows
that no part of the new building would contact the existing building and it would be completely detached from
the main dwelling. Under these circumstances, I consider that despite its proximity to the dwellinghouse the
building would be a separate structure within the curtilage and not an enlargement of the dwelling.
It therefore falls to be considered under Class E because it involves “the provision within the curtilage
of the dwellinghouse of... any building...”.
[Note: In my
opinion, one of the major flaws of the amended version of Part 1 is that it no longer includes an Interpretation
that any detached structure within 5m should be treated as a Class A extension (rather than a Class E
outbuilding). As a result, there is now the potential to circumvent
the rear projection limits of Class A (which are designed to protect neighbour amenity) and the side projection
limits of Class A (which are designed to protect the streetscene) by erecting a detached structure within close
proximity to the main house (i.e. instead of an attached structure).
However, I am
not particularly convinced by the argument that just because this Interpretation has now been removed, it
therefore follows that there is no limit whatsoever to how close a detached structure can be to the main house
whilst still falling under Class E. In my opinion, a 5cm separation
distance is clearly a “token” amount, and if the structure subject of this appeal were built (please see the
submitted drawings via the link below), an average person viewing it would be far more likely to identify it as
“an extension” rather than “an outbuilding”. In any case, as this
is the only appeal decision so far that has dealt with this particular issue, in my opinion LPAs would be
entitled to continue to form their own interpretations of this particular issue until further guidance or appeal
decisions become available].
then dismissed the appeal on the basis that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that the proposed
outbuilding would be “incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse”.
Even if a detached structure
would be separated from the main house by only a very small (i.e. token) amount, this would still be
sufficient for the structure to fall under Class E (“the provision within the curtilage of the
dwellinghouse of … any building …”) rather than Class A (“the enlargement, improvement or other alteration of
“Interaction between Class A and Class E”, Class A, Class E].
Links to the “Appeal
Decision Notice” and other associated documents (e.g. drawings, etc):
Download documents and diagrams of