ask us a question on permitted development           Permitted Development England
How to build a home extension  without Planning Permission using your PD rights - Oct. 1st 2008



Home Page About Us FAQ Advertise on this site Disclaimer Privacy Contact Us Site Map

Appeal Decision 217 - Certificate of Lawful Development.

This appeal decision summary and assessment has been produced by Planning Jungle Limited.  For more information, please go to


March 2011 - Code a00217


Summary of Case (appeal dismissed): 


The property is a two-storey semi-detached house. The property has an original two-storey side projection, the short rear wall of which is not as far rearward as the much longer rear wall of the main part of the house. The application was for a proposed single storey rear extension, which would have projected 3m from the longer rear wall and therefore significantly further than 3m from the shorter rear wall. 


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 Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) published Technical Guidance: Permitted development for householders in 2010 (TG). The introduction to the guidance acknowledges that, given the very substantial variation in the design of individual houses, this guide cannot cover all situations that may arise. However the guidance set out on page 17 of the TG is representative of the situation which is the subject of this appeal. It advises that “where the original rear wall of a house is stepped, then each of these walls will form the ‘rear wall of the original dwelling house’. In such cases, the limits on extensions apply to any of the rear walls being extended beyond.’ 


In order to be permitted development, a proposal must meet all the limitations and conditions under the Class of development relevant to the proposal. I consider that the Council’s interpretation of the relevant provisions of the GPDO to be correct, and in accordance with the TG. While I note that the previous ‘informal views’ issued by DCLG do not refer to ‘stepped’ rear walls, the Council’s statement accurately reflects the wording in the TG. I acknowledge the appellant’s view that the ‘main body of the house is included in an area that extends to the rearmost rear wall’. However the side projection of the original house, even though significantly narrower than the main body of the house, has a rear elevation, and it is consequently correct to interpret the rear elevation of the dwelling as being stepped. In any event there would be no permitted development rights for a development to the side of an extension projecting behind the rearmost wall of the house. The disputed ‘infill’ section would not therefore comply with the provisions of the GPDO. 


The Council refers to a previous appeal decision on a different property in the Borough [December 2009 - Code a00055] which was found to be at fault, as the Inspector did not give reasons in the decision as to why he took a different approach to the informal advice of DCLG (Appendix 1 of the Council’s Appeal statement). As the appellant states acceptance of this complaint was on grounds of lack of reasoning for adopting a different approach, rather than non-compliance with the guidance. However, the informal advice has been replaced by the TG. I appreciate that the TG is guidance and should not be applied in a rigid manner without taking account of site circumstances. Nevertheless it has been issued to assist consistency of interpretation, which is an important attribute of administrative fairness, and I consider it has been correctly applied in this instance. The rear wall of the side projection of the dwelling is some 1.8 metres in width (appellant’s measurement) and is properly considered as part of the rear wall of the dwelling.” 


Main Conclusions: 


·       Where a property has a (part-width) original rear projection, then there will be more than one wall that constitutes “the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse” for the purposes of Class A, part A.1(e). This means that where the original rear elevation of a property is stepped, the 3m/4m rear projection limit will be similarly stepped.
[Note: This would appear to contradict at least one other appeal decision – for further information see the entry in the “Reference Section” on “The rear wall of the original dwellinghouse”].
[Relevant to: “The rear wall of the original dwellinghouse”, A.1(e), A.1(f), A.2(c)].


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


·       Appeal Decision Notice: 

·       OS Map: 

·       Existing Floor Plans: 

·       Existing Elevations: 

·       Proposed Floor Plans: 

·       Proposed Elevations: 




Download documents and diagrams of useful

Permitted Development information

permitted development documents download


 Appeal Decisions