Appeal Decision 146 - Certificate of Lawful Development.

October 2010 - Code a00146

Summary of Case (appeal allowed): 

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 drawing. 

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 

Dwellinghouse”. 

The Inspector stated the following: 

“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 following: 

“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)]. 

Main Conclusions: 

·       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), G.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 Notice:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00146-Appeal-Decision-Notice.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

·       Drawings:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00146-Drawings.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

Download documents and diagrams of useful

Permitted Development information