Appeal Decision 131 - Certificate of Lawful Development.

August 2010 - Code a00131

Summary of Case (appeal dismissed): 

The property is a single storey detached bungalow, with an existing side extension and an existing rear extension. The application proposed the removal of these existing extensions (to return the property to its original configuration), and then proposed the erection of a single storey side and rear extension, which would have projected half the width of the house from the side elevation and then wrapped around the rear/side corner to project 4m/3m from the rear elevation. The roof of the proposed extension would have joined onto the roof of the main house, and would have contained a small side dormer, a small rear dormer, and several rooflights in order to create first floor habitable rooms. 

The key issue was whether the proposed single storey side and rear extension would be contrary to Class A, part A.1(h), which 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— (i) exceed 4 metres in height, (ii) have more than one storey, or (iii) have a width greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse”. 

The Inspector stated the following: 

“However, the extension as a whole would not just extend beyond a side wall. Fatally, for this appeal, the  

addition overall would be more than half the width of the original house, as it would also extend across the full width of the rear of the original dwelling. I therefore conclude that erecting a side and rear extension, together with a link between the two as a combined building operation, as shown on drawing number 616/08-100, would breach limitation A.1(h)(iii) of Class A1 of Part A to Schedule 2 to the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 and would require planning permission.”

[Note: The proposed roof extension was not subject of the Council’s reasons for refusal, and the Inspector agreed with both parties that it would be permitted development. However, in assessing the proposed roof extension, the Inspector appears to have confused the previous and amended versions of Part 1 of the GPDO. For example, in paragraph 5, the Inspector first states that the proposed roof extension should be assessed against the amended version of Part 1 (i.e. as introduced in 2008), but then quotes the text of the previous version of Part 1. In paragraph 6, the Inspector first states that the proposed roof extension would accord with the 70m3 overall volume limit (which was a limitation of the previous version of Part 1) and then states that it would accord with the obscure-glazed requirement (which is a condition of the amended version of Part 1)].

Main Conclusions: 

·       Under Class A, part A.1(h), where part of a proposed extension would extend beyond an original side wall, the restriction against having “a width greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse” applies to the entire extension (i.e. not just to that part of the extension that extends beyond the original side wall). In other words, the overall width of the proposed extension can not be greater than then half the width of the main house, even if the part of the extension that extends beyond the original side wall does not do so by more than half the width of the house.
[Note: This would appear to contradict at least one other appeal decision – for further information see the entry in the “Reference Section” on “A.1(h)”]
[Relevant to: A.1(h)].

·       Where the rear and side elevations of a property are flat (i.e. not stepped), Class A, part A.1(e), and Class A, part A.1(h) would not allow an extension to project 3m/4m from the rear elevation and then wrap-around the corner to project half the width of the house from the side elevation. This is on the basis that the restriction against having “a width greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse” applies to the entire extension (i.e. not just to that part of the extension that extends beyond the original side wall).
[Note: This would appear to contradict at least one other appeal decision – for further information see the entry in the “Reference Section” on “Interaction between A.1(e)/(f) and A.1(h)”]
[Relevant to: “Interaction between A.1(e)/(f) and A.1(h)”, A.1(e), A.1(f), A.1(h)].

Links to the “Appeal Decision Notice” and other associated documents (e.g. drawings, etc): 

·       Appeal Decision Notice:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00131-Appeal-Decision-Notice.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

·       Existing Drawings:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00131-Existing-Drawings.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

·       Proposed Drawings:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00131-Proposed-Drawings.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

Download documents and diagrams of useful

Permitted Development information