Appeal Decision 146 - 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
October 2010 - Code a00146
Summary of Case (appeal
The property is a large
detached farmhouse, significantly set back from Pennypot Lane (to the south-east) and Beldam Bridge Road (to the
south-west). In the appeal decision notice, the Inspector accepts that the south-east elevation is the principal
elevation. The property already has an existing full-width single storey rear extension (i.e. on its north-west
elevation), which appears to correspond to the rooms marked “Breakfast Room” and “Kitchen” on the submitted
The proposed extension would
be attached to the south-west side wall of the existing extension, with depth 4m and width 3.5m. For further
information about the proposed extension, please view the submitted drawings.
The first key issue was
whether the proposed extension would be contrary to Class A, part A.1(d), which states that “Development is not
permitted by Class A if … the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would extend beyond a wall which— (i) fronts a
highway, and (ii) forms either the principal elevation or a side elevation of the original
The Inspector stated the
“The main entrance to [the
application site] is from Pennypot Lane, but it stands at the junction of this lane and Bedlam Bridge Road. The
side elevation faces towards the latter road, but is masked by various converted farm buildings which form a
separate dwelling, in the ownership of the appellants. A drive runs from the garden area in front of the side
elevation towards Bedlam Bridge Road and then turns at right angles to a gate onto Pennypot Lane. The drive runs
through a paddock area between the farm and the road, and is separated from the road by a thick hedgerow and a
narrow strip of land not in the appellant’s ownership. The road is about 68m distant from the closest part of
the original side elevation. When looking back from the end of the drive, although the extended side elevation
can be seen, the original side elevation is entirely hidden by the converted barns.
There is no exact
definition of what is meant by the phrase ‘fronts a highway’, but in this case I consider the relationship of
the original farm to the outbuildings suggests the side elevation fronted onto what would once have been a yard.
That and the distance across the paddock convinces me the original side elevation does not front a highway and
so the orangery is not caught by A.1(d).”
The second issue was whether
the proposed 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
“The relevant criterion of
A.1(h) is whether the enlarged part of the dwelling would extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the
original dwellinghouse and would have a width greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse. The
orangery would be 3.5m wide and so would project beyond the side wall by 3.5m. The original dwelling was 7m wide
and so the width would not be greater than half the width of the original dwelling”.
[Note: In my
opinion, it could be argued that this appeal decision contradicts the advice in the
“DCLG - Permitted development for householders - Technical guidance” (August
2010). The example at the bottom of page 26 and the explanatory text at the top
of page 27 of the “Technical Guidance” document indicate that the phrase “the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse”
not only applies to the proposed extension, but also includes any previous extension to which the proposed
extension would be attached. For the above application, this would imply that “the enlarged part of the
dwellinghouse” would consist of the proposed side extension (width 3.5m) plus the existing rear extension (width
7m), which as a combined structure would have a width that would be significantly greater than half the width of
the original dwellinghouse (7m/2 = 3.5m), contrary to Class A, part A.1(h)].
This appeal decision provides an
example of where it was considered that a particular elevation does not front a highway, even though the
elevation faces in the direction towards a highway.
[Relevant to: “Fronts a highway”, A.1(d), B.1(b),
This appeal decision states, or
implies, that the phrase “the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse” only applies to the proposed extension, and
does not 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].
Links to the “Appeal Decision
Notice” and other associated documents (e.g. drawings, etc):
· Appeal Decision
Download documents and diagrams of