Appeal Decision 4 - Certificate of Lawful Development.

May 2009 - Code a00004  

Summary of Case (appeal dismissed): 

The application site is a two-storey house with an original two-storey rear projection.  Within the infill area, to the side of the original two-storey rear projection, the application would have left a small courtyard, and then would have erected a single storey extension, which would have projected past the end of the original two-storey rear projection and wrapped around the latter. 

The Inspector stated the following: 

“The GPDO refers to separate elements of extensions to dwellinghouses, such as rear extensions and side extensions, which have to be considered separately in the terms of the relevant part of paragraph A.1. However, I have to look at the proposal as a whole. I consider that the proposal is not a rear extension within paragraph A.1(e) because its width would be greater by about 1.8m than the width of the rear wall of the rear projection. Nor would it be a side extension within paragraph A.1(h) because it would extend beyond the wall forming the side elevation for a depth of about 2.4m. As the proposal in its entirety does not fall within the terms of the GPDO it would not be permitted development.”

[Note: In my opinion, the above conclusion is questionable, because the Inspector has stated that the proposed extension would not be permitted development, but (unlike the LPA involved) has not identified any limitation or condition of Class A to which the extension would be contrary.  Also, in my opinion, it is misleading to use phrases such as “rear extensions” and “side extensions”, because the GPDO does not use such phrases.  Instead, Class A, part A.1(e) sets out that no extension may extend more than 3m/4m beyond the rear wall of the original house, whilst Class A, part A.1(h) sets out that no extension which extends beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original house may have a width greater than half the width of the original house. 

In my opinion, it is incorrect to take the approach that an extension must either be “a rear extension” or “a side extension”, and then to apply either Class A, part A.1(e) or Class A, part A.1(h) respectively.  This is because it is possible for both of these limitations to apply to an extension.  For example, suppose a three-storey property has an original two-storey side projection that covers only the front part of the three-storey side elevation.  A single storey extension directly to the rear of this original two-storey side projection would be directly attached to the rear wall of the original two-storey side projection and directly attached to the rear part of the three-storey side elevation.  In my opinion, both Class A, part A.1(e) and Class A, part A.1(h) would apply to this extension, and this is regardless of whether we call the latter “a rear extension”, “a side extension”, “a rear and side extension”, or just “an extension”]. 

Main Conclusions: 

·       Where an extension within an infill area would leave a courtyard, and then project past the end of the original rear projection and wrap around the latter, it would not be permitted development.
[Note: In my opinion, the above conclusion is questionable, because the Inspector has stated that the proposed extension would not be permitted development, but (unlike the LPA involved) has not identified any limitation or condition of Class A to which the extension would be contrary].
[Relevant to: A.1(e)]. 

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

·       Appeal Decision Notice:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00004-Appeal-Decision-Notice.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

·       Existing Drawings:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00004-Existing-Drawings.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

·       Proposed Drawings:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00004-Existing-Drawings.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes