Permitted Development England
How to build a
home extension without Planning Permission using your PD rights - Oct. 1st
2008
|
|||||||||
Appeal Decision 215 - Certificate of Lawful Development.
Summary of Case (appeal dismissed):
The property is a detached house, situated within a conservation area. The north-west elevation of the property contains the main entrance, whilst the south-west elevation of the property fronts the Shropshire Union Canal (which includes a tow-path). Otherwise, the property is situated a significant distance from any highway. The application was for a proposed outbuilding, which would be situated to the south-east of the house. As I was unable to view the drawings for this application, please refer to the extract below from the appeal decision notice for further details.
The key issue was whether the proposed outbuilding 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 Council argued that the south-west elevation of the property is the “principal elevation”, that therefore the south-east elevation is a side elevation, and therefore the proposed outbuilding would be contrary to Class E, part E.3. The appellant argued that the north-west elevation is the “principal elevation”, that therefore the south-east elevation is a rear elevation, and therefore the proposed outbuilding would not be contrary to Class E, part E.3.
The Inspector stated the following:
“The guidance indicates that the rear wall of a house will be the one that is directly opposite the front of the house. A wall forming a side elevation of a house will be any wall that cannot be identified as being a front wall or a rear wall. [The application site] was built in association with the canal and, as the name suggests, has a link to the lock. The northwest elevation faces the pedestrian and vehicular access and people approach the dwelling from this angle, because it has the main entrance door. However, the nearest public road is about 400m away and is accessed over a private drive. In contrast, the southwest elevation faces the canal and the towpath passes directly adjacent to the property, because of the design and layout of the house. The appellant states that the timber gate formed in the canal footpath hedge was a later addition, nevertheless, I have to make a determination based on the facts as I find them. There is hedging and fencing along the boundary beside the canal footpath, but the southwest facing elevation of the dwelling is visible from the public footpath. This elevation is displayed to public views because of the dwelling’s positioning within the curtilage.
Turning to the character of the southwest elevation, it has an elaborate façade, bay window and it overlooks the canal and public footpath. It appears to me that the original orientation of the property was towards the canal, because of the building’s age and architecture, its origin and the layout of the curtilage. In comparison, the functional design and degree of ornamentation of the southwest façade is not apparent on the other elevations. It does not have a main entrance, but it does face the towpath which is a public footpath classed as a highway.
On the circumstances of this particular case, I consider that the southeast and northwest facing elevations cannot be identified as being the front or rear walls, due to the relationship of [the application site] to the canal and the character of the elevations. Despite the location of the main door and driveway, the southwest elevation is the front of the property. The side elevations of the property are those facing southeast and northwest because the front determines the side and rear elevations.
Consequently, the development would fail to comply with paragraph E.3 because the site is located within the Canal Conservation Area and the outbuilding would be on land between a wall forming a side elevation of the dwellinghouse and the boundary of the curtilage of the dwellinghouse.”
Main Conclusions:
·
This appeal decision provides an
example of the types of factors that should be taken into consideration when determining which
elevation is “the principal elevation”.
·
The principal elevation is
not necessarily the elevation that contains the main entrance.
Links to the “Appeal Decision Notice” and other associated documents (e.g. drawings, etc):
·
Appeal Decision
Notice:
·
OS Map:
Download documents and diagrams of useful Permitted Development information
| |||||||||
|
©2020 - Christopher Hunt :: This page
last updated: :: 