Appeal Decision 126 - Certificate of Lawful
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 a00126
Summary of Case (appeal
The property is a two-storey
mid-terrace house with an original two-storey rear projection. Across part of the width of the latter structure
is an original single storey WC, and across the remaining width of the latter structure is a single storey rear
extension. The application was for an extension within the side infill area, which would have projected 3m
beyond the end of the original two-storey rear projection, wrapping around the rear of the latter to replace the
original single storey WC and existing single storey rear extension.
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 Inspector stated the
“The proposed extension
would project some 6.6 metres beyond the rear wall of the main part of the original dwellinghouse and some 3
metres beyond the rear wall of the original projection. Communities and Local Government have published guidance
on some aspects of the amended Part 1 of the GPDO. This is only guidance and the GPDO has to be interpreted in
terms of how it is written. Nevertheless the guidance makes it clear that the relevant consideration is the part
of the wall that is being extended from and that where there is an original rear addition/outrigger there
will be more than one original rear wall. I find nothing in the words of the GPDO that would argue for a
different interpretation. There is no suggestion that paragraph A.1(e)(i) is intended to refer only to the
rear wall that is furthest back regardless of which rear wall is being extended from.
The proposed development
would extend by more than 3 metres from the rear wall of the original main part of the dwellinghouse. The
proposal has to be considered as a whole and it fails to satisfy the test in paragraph A.1(e)(i) and would
not be permitted development under Class A. No other part of the GPDO is relevant.
The Appellant has referred
to different interpretations of the GPDO by others, including other local planning authorities. I cannot comment
in this decision on those interpretations nor can I take them into account as no legal authority has been
provided with regard to these different interpretations. I have also noted the Appellant’s concerns about the
advice and information she was given about her application by the Council but these are matters outside the
planning considerations with which I am concerned in this appeal.”
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
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)].
Links to the “Appeal
Decision Notice” and other associated documents (e.g. drawings, etc):
Existing Elevations and Ground Floor
Proposed Ground Floor
Download documents and diagrams of