Appeal Decision 148 - Certificate of Lawful Development.

November 2010 - Code a00148

Summary of Case (appeal dismissed): 

The property is a two-storey semi-detached house, with an original single storey rear projection. Directly to the rear of the latter there was previously a single storey rear extension (depth 2.7m), which has subsequently been replaced by an existing single storey rear and side infill extension. This existing extension is subject of an enforcement notice, and this application proposes to demolish this existing extension and to replace it with a new proposed rear and side infill extension which would leave a courtyard within the infill area, as described below. 

Directly to the side of the original single storey rear projection, within the infill area, the proposals would have left a courtyard area. The proposed extension would then have covered the remaining rearmost part of the infill area, and would have projected 2.7m beyond the end of the original single 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(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: 

“Paragraph A1(h) provides that development is not permitted if the “enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse, and would … (iii) have a width greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse”. This proposal is again for a single L shaped extension, not two unconnected structures. It is thus the whole of it that would constitute the “enlarged part” of the house. As questions of fact, the “enlarged part” would extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse and that part of it projecting beyond the rear wall would have a width greater than half that of the original dwellinghouse. It would indeed be almost the same width as the house. 

Further examples of what may or may not meet the GPDO provisions, including successive constructions, can be found in the technical guidance note issued by the Department of Communities and Local Government in August 2010, entitled “Permitted development for householders” (ISBN: 978-1-4098-2493-0). For the above reason however, this extension is clearly caught by paragraph A1(h) and no permission is granted for it. The Council’s refusal was therefore justified”. 

Main Conclusions: 

·       The side wall of an original rear projection (i.e. the side wall facing the infill area) is “a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse” for the purposes of the GPDO.
[Note: This would appear to contradict at least one other appeal decision – for further information see the entry in the “Reference Section” on “A side elevation of the original dwellinghouse”].
[Relevant to: “A side elevation of the original dwellinghouse”, A.1(d), A.1(h), A.2(b), A.3(b), B.2(c), C.2, E.3, G.1(b)].

·       For example, an extension to the side of an original rear projection where the extension has a width greater than half the width of the original house is not permitted development.
[Note: This would appear to contradict at least one other appeal decision – for further information see the entry in the “Reference Section” on “A side elevation of the original dwellinghouse”].
[Relevant to: “A side elevation of the original dwellinghouse”, A.1(d), A.1(h), A.2(b), A.3(b), B.2(c), C.2, E.3, G.1(b)].

·       Furthermore, even the side wall of an original single storey rear projection (i.e. the side wall facing the infill area) is “a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse”.
[Note: This would appear to contradict at least one other appeal decision – for further information see the entry in the “Reference Section” on “A side elevation of the original dwellinghouse”].
[Relevant to: “A side elevation of the original dwellinghouse”, A.1(d), A.1(h), A.2(b), A.3(b), B.2(c), C.2, E.3, G.1(b)].

·       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)].

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

·       Appeal Decision Notice:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00148-Appeal-Decision-Notice.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

·       Drawings:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00148-Drawings.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

Download documents and diagrams of useful

Permitted Development information