Appeal Decision 153 - 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
November 2010 - Code a00153
Summary of Case (appeal
The property is a very large
two-storey detached house, set within substantial grounds and located within a conservation area. The
application was for a proposed single storey rear extension and two proposed outbuildings.
The outbuildings would be
situated just rearward of the line of the rear elevation of the house, but just forward of the line of the rear
elevation of the proposed single storey rear extension.
The key issue was whether the
proposed outbuildings would be contrary to Class E, part E.3, which states that “In the case of any land within
the curtilage of the dwellinghouse which is article 1(5) land, development is not permitted by Class E if any
part of the building … would be situated on land between a wall forming a side elevation of the dwellinghouse
and the boundary of the curtilage of the dwellinghouse”.
The Inspector stated the
“The two proposed
outbuildings would be located within the domestic curtilage to the rear of the existing rear elevation of the
dwelling. In the absence of the proposed rear extension they would not be excluded as permitted development by
the Class E.3 limitation. However, if the rear extension was built, both outbuildings would be sited between the
rear extension and the boundary of the domestic curtilage. They would therefore lie between the side elevation
of the dwellinghouse, as extended, and the side boundary of the property.
Hence the overall effect
of the implementation of the development proposal, which I must consider as a whole, would be that the
outbuildings would not be permitted development by virtue of the Class E.3 limitation. A proposal making a claim
of permitted development rights under more than one Class must be assessed against each and every one of the
sub-clauses of the relevant part of Schedule 2 for each Class. If, as in this case, any of the limitations,
exemptions or provisos is exceeded, then the whole development is not permitted by the
Class E, part E.3 only prevents
outbuildings from being within the area that is directly in between the side wall of the house and the side
boundary. In other words, this limitation does not prevent outbuildings from being within the additional area
that can be covered if considering the imaginary line of the side wall when extended forwards and
For the purposes of Class E,
part E.3, the phase “a side elevation of the dwellinghouse” includes the side wall of a non-original
extension. As such, Class E, part E.3 would prevent an outbuilding from being within the area that is
directly in between the side wall of such an extension and the side boundary.
[Relevant to: E.3].
Links to the “Appeal Decision
Notice” and other associated documents (e.g. drawings, etc):
· Appeal Decision
· Proposed Site
Download documents and diagrams of