Appeal Decision 180 - Certificate of Lawful Development.

December 2010 - Code a00180

Summary of Case (appeal dismissed): 

The property is a two-storey house, for which the front door was originally contained within a small single storey front projection with height greater than 3m (this feature is repeated on the adjoining property). This original front projection has previously been incorporated into a much larger front porch, with the pitched roof of the former structure replaced by part of the curved roof of the latter structure. It appears that these works are the subject of an enforcement notice. This application proposed to remove the existing much larger porch, to reinstate the pitched roof of the original front projection (height greater than 3m), and to erect a new smaller porch in front of the original front projection. 

The Inspector stated the following: 

“The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No.2) (England) Order 2008 Schedule Part 1 Class D.1(b) permits erection of a porch provided no part of the structure would, amongst other criteria, be more than three metres above ground level. The proposed porch shown on drawing 9252-12-P0 dated 25 February 2010 consists of a three metre high section with a level ridge to the front together with a sloping section to the rear that clearly exceeds three metres. In fact the sloping part of the roof reaches a maximum of about 4m. The two sections of roof form an integral part of the proposed porch structure. 

Because the rear part of the porch structure would exceed three metres the whole porch is in breach of planning control. The fact that this rear sloping part of the porch is a re-instatement of a structure that was in place at some time in the past does not render the porch permitted development. This is because any re-instatement rights over the rear sloping part of the porch were extinguished when this part of the earlier porch was demolished and when the large replacement porch was subsequently constructed. No explanation is given by Mr Al Kazzaz as to how any lawfulness of the sloping part of the porch roof arises. For these reasons I conclude that the Council’s refusal to grant a certificate of lawful use or development in respect of erection of the porch was well-founded and that the appeal should fail”. 

The Inspector also awarded costs against the applicant. In the Costs Decision, the Inspector states that the roof of the original front projection, “once demolished, loses its rights other than those granted by planning permission or legislation”. 

Main Conclusions: 

·       When part of the original structure of a property is demolished, there is no automatic right to reinstate it (assuming that it does not comply with any of the Classes of permitted development legislation).
[Relevant to: “General”].

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

·       Appeal Decision Notice:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00180-Appeal-Decision-Notice.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

·       Drawings:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00180-Drawings.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

·       Costs Decision Notice:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00180-Costs-Decision-Notice.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

Download documents and diagrams of useful

Permitted Development information