Appeal Decision 135 - Certificate of Lawful Development.

September 2010 - Code a00135

Summary of Case (appeal dismissed): 

The property is a two-storey semi-detached house with an original two-storey rear projection. Although I have been unable to view the drawings for this application, it appears from the decision notice that the application was for a proposed rear and side infill extension. Directly to the side of the original two-storey rear projection, within the infill area, the proposals would have left a courtyard area (length 2.45m). The proposed extension would then have covered the remaining rearmost part of the infill area, and would have projected 3m beyond the end of the original two-storey rear projection, wrapping around the rear of the latter. 

The key issue was whether the proposed extension 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 following: 

“Relevant technical guidance from the Department for Communities and Local Government has recently been published on the Planning Portal, which I consider resolves the disputed issue reasonably straightforwardly. On page 17 under the heading of A.1 (e), the advice is given that “Where the original rear wall of a house is stepped, then each of these walls will form “the rear wall of the original dwelling house.”” The proposed development is in a form that best corresponds with the second example on page 23 under the heading of “Rear and side extensions”. Applying the guidance around that example, I consider it is clear that where the proposed rear extension wraps around the side of the outrigger it will extend more than 3 metres in length beyond the rear wall of the original dwelling house – namely, the wall forming the rear of the main house containing the dining room. Thus, while the proposed extension projecting from the rear of the outrigger will be within 3 metres of relevant rear wall, it will project beyond 3 metres of the rear of the main house where the extension wraps around to the side. In that respect it fails to comply in my view.” 

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)].

·       Furthermore, where a property has a (part-width) original rear projection, it is not possible to erect an extension within the infill area that projects more than 3m/4m from the original rear wall within the infill area by leaving a gap (e.g. courtyard) between the extension and the latter. In other words, the phrase “extends beyond the rear wall” not only applies to extensions directly attached to that rear wall, but can also apply to extensions directly to the rear of that rear wall.
[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)].

 

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

·       Appeal Decision Notice:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00135-Appeal-Decision-Notice.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

Download documents and diagrams of useful

Permitted Development information