Appeal Decision 125 - Certificate of Lawful Development.

June 2010 - Code a00125

Summary of Case (appeal dismissed): 

The property is a large detached house, with its front elevation facing west towards the highway. At the northern end of its rear elevation, the property has an original two-storey rear projection. In the middle of its rear elevation (i.e. adjoining the southern side elevation of the original two-storey rear projection) there is a two-storey rear extension that was erected in the 1980s. The application was for a proposed single storey extension at the southern end of the rear elevation, within the area bounded by the remaining part of this rear elevation (width 2m) and the side elevation of the 1980s two-storey rear extension (length 4m). The property is situated within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (i.e. Article 1(5) land). 

The first key issue was whether the rear wall to which the extension would be attached (as opposed to the rear wall of the original two-storey rear projection) should be classed as part of “the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse” for the purposes of 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 Inspector stated the following: 

“In terms of extension beyond the rear wall, the appellants appear to accept that the property has two original rear walls which together constitute the rear elevation. In my opinion this is correct.” 

The second key issue was whether the proposed extension would be contrary to Class A, part A.2(b), which states that “In the case of a dwellinghouse on article 1(5) land, 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”. 

The Inspector stated the following: 

“In the same way it seems to me that the south-facing side elevation has two walls – the gable of the roadside section, and the wall of the original wing. There is no stipulation in the GPDO relating only to the outermost of walls which together form a side elevation. In my opinion the assessment should be based on the particular wall which is being extended from. 

Moreover I consider that where an extension would be to both a rear and side elevation, the appropriate permitted development provisions are those which relate to extensions on both rear and side walls. For the extension to be permitted development it must accord with both sets of provisions.  

Paragraph A.2(b) does not take specific account of any existing intervening extension not part of the original dwellinghouse; it says “extend beyond”, not “extend from”. It seems to me that the enlargement of the original property here includes the existing extension, and that the totality of the enlargement should be considered. Accordingly, even though the proposal would not adjoin the side elevation of the original dwellinghouse, it would be part and parcel of an enlargement which does. In these circumstances I consider that the proposal would “extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse” and so would not be permitted development under Class A.2(b) of Part 1 of schedule 2 to the GPDO." 

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)].

·       The side wall of an original rear projection (i.e. the side wall facing the infill area) is “a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse” for the purposes of the GPDO.
[Note: This would appear to contradict at least one other appeal decision – for further information see the entry in the “Reference Section” on “A side elevation of the original dwellinghouse”].
[Relevant to: “A side elevation of the original dwellinghouse”, A.1(d), A.1(h), A.2(b), A.3(b), B.2(c), C.2, E.3, G.1(b)].

·       A property can have more than one wall that constitutes “a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse” for the purposes of the GPDO.
[Relevant to: “A side elevation of the original dwellinghouse”, A.1(d), A.1(h), A.2(b), A.3(b), B.2(c), C.2, E.3, G.1(b)].

·       For example, an extension to the side of an original rear projection within a conservation area (or other article 1(5) land) is not permitted development.
[Note: This would appear to contradict at least one other appeal decision – for further information see the entry in the “Reference Section” on “A side elevation of the original dwellinghouse”].
[Relevant to: “A side elevation of the original dwellinghouse”, A.1(d), A.1(h), A.2(b), A.3(b), B.2(c), C.2, E.3, G.1(b)].

·       It is incorrect to take the approach that an extension must either be a “rear extension” or “side extension”, and then to apply either A.1(e)/(f) or A.1(h) respectively. Where an extension would extend beyond both an original rear wall and an original side elevation, then both A.1(e)/(f) and A.1(h) will be applicable.
[Relevant to: “Interaction between A.1(e)/(f) and A.1(h)”, A.1(e), A.1(f), A.1(h)].

·       This appeal decision states, or implies, that the phrase “the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse” not only applies to the proposed extension, but also includes any previous extension (i.e. non-original part of the application site) to which the proposed extension would be attached.
[Note: This would appear to contradict at least one other appeal decision – for further information see the entry in the “Reference Section” on “The enlarged part of the dwellinghouse”].
[Relevant to: “The enlarged part of the dwellinghouse”, A.1(b), A.1(c), A.1(d), A.1(e), A.1(f), A.1(g), A.1(h), A.2(b), A.2(c), B.3].

·       Where a previous extension has been added to an original wall or elevation, and then a proposed new extension would be added to the previous extension (i.e. so that the proposed new extension would not in itself be directly attached to the original wall or elevation), then the proposed new extension would still “extend beyond” that original wall or elevation.
[Relevant to: “General”, A.1(d), A.1(e), A.1(f), A.1(h), A.2(b), A.2(c), B.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=a00125-Appeal-Decision-Notice.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

·       Drawings:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00125-Drawings.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

·       Drawings for 1980s extension:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00125-Drawings-for-1980s-extension.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

·       Supplementary Drawings:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00125-Supplementary-Drawings.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

Download documents and diagrams of useful

Permitted Development information