Appeal Decision 176 - Certificate of Lawful Development.

December 2010 - Code a00176

Summary of Case (appeal dismissed): 

The property is a two-storey semi-detached house. The property has an older single storey rear extension (length 3.5m), to the rear of which a newer single storey rear conservatory (length 3.0m) has been erected. The application was a retrospective application for a certificate of lawfulness for the newer single storey rear conservatory. 

The key issue was whether the proposals 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: 

“The extension is under 4 metres in height and it is, in itself, under 3 metres in depth, 3 metres being the appropriate limitation as the property is semidetached. However, it is the word “original” within the phrase “original dwellinghouse” that is of importance here. “Original” is defined, in Article 1 of the GPDO, as meaning, in relation to a building, other than a building which is Crown land, existing on 1st July 1948, as existing on that date and, in relation to a building, other than a building which is Crown land, built on or after 1^st July 1948, as so built. 

Unfortunately for the appellant the original dwellinghouse has been the subject of a previous rear extension and the conservatory has subsequently been built on to the back of that extension. This means that, when measuring the depth of the conservatory from the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse, it is necessary to add the depth of the earlier extension to the depth of the conservatory. When this is done it is clear that the conservatory extends well in excess of three metres from the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse and that it cannot therefore constitute permitted development”. 

Main Conclusions: 

·       Where a previous extension has been added to an original wall or elevation, and then a proposed new extension would be added to the previous extension (i.e. so that the proposed new extension would not in itself be directly attached to the original wall or elevation), then the proposed new extension would still “extend beyond” that original wall or elevation.
[Relevant to: “General”, A.1(d), A.1(e), A.1(f), A.1(h), A.2(b), A.2(c), B.1(b)].

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

·       Appeal Decision Notice:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00176-Appeal-Decision-Notice.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

·       OS Map:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00176-OS-Map.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

·       Proposed Drawings:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00176-Proposed-Drawings.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

·       Proposed Block Plan:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00176-Proposed-Block-Plan.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

Download documents and diagrams of useful

Permitted Development information