Appeal Decision 203 - 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
January 2011 - Code a00203
Summary of Case (appeal
The property is a detached
house. The application was for a proposed outbuilding in the rear garden, which would have consisted of a “gym”,
“store”, and a third room containing a shower, toilet, and sink. The proposed outbuilding would have had height
2.5m (eaves) to 3.944m (ridge-line), the walls of the outbuilding would have been 2.05m from the boundaries, but
the projecting eaves would have been slightly closer than 2m.
The key issue was whether the
proposed outbuilding would be contrary to Class E, part E.1(d), which states that “Development is not permitted
by Class E if … the height of the building, enclosure or container would exceed … (ii) 2.5 metres in the case of
a building, enclosure or container within 2 metres of the boundary of the curtilage of the
The Inspector stated the
“CLG has produced
technical guidance entitled Permitted development for householders. In relation to Class A of Part 1 the
guidance states that ‘Measurement of the extension beyond the rear wall should be made from the base of the rear
wall of the original house to the outer edge of the wall of the extension (not including any guttering or barge
boards).’ It is reasonable to assume the same logic would be applicable to Class E. This approach is also
taken by the Inspector in the case referred to by the appellant at [September 2009 - Code a00024].
Furthermore, although not forming part of the application, the appellant confirms that the building would have a
flush eaves detail. Therefore, on the information before me, the building would be more than 2m from the
boundary and would comply with the limitation within paragraph E.1 (d) of Class E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the
The Inspector then dismissed
the appeal on the basis that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that the proposed outbuilding would be
reasonably required for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse. The Inspector also rejected
the appellant’s application for costs.
Where the walls of an
outbuilding would not be within 2m of a boundary, but the eaves of the outbuilding would overhang to slightly
within 2m of a boundary, then the 2.5m height restriction of E.1(d) would not apply.
[Note: This would appear to contradict
at least one other appeal decision – for further information see the entry in the “Reference Section” on
[Relevant to: A.1(g), E.1(d)].
Links to the “Appeal
Decision Notice” and other associated documents (e.g. drawings, etc):
Download documents and diagrams of