Appeal Decision 203 - Certificate of Lawful Development.

January 2011 - Code a00203

Summary of Case (appeal dismissed): 

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 dwellinghouse”. 

The Inspector stated the following: 

“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 GPDO.” 

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. 

Main Conclusions: 

·       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 “E.1(d)”]
[Relevant to: A.1(g), E.1(d)].

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

·       Appeal Decision Notice:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00203-Appeal-Decision-Notice.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

·       OS Map:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00203-OS-Map.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

·       Drawings:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00203-Drawings.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

·       Costs Decision Notice:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00203-Costs-Decision-Notice.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

Download documents and diagrams of useful

Permitted Development information