Appeal Decision 44 - Certificate of Lawful Development.

November 2009 - Code a00044  

Summary of Case (appeal allowed): 

The property is a detached house in very large grounds.  The road runs from south-west to north-east, and the property is set-back from the road on the north-west side.  The layout and the design of the property have been significantly altered since it was originally built in 1974, including the extension of its footprint, the increase in its height from one to two storeys, and alterations to its door and window openings.  The application was for a large outbuilding, which would have been located to the south-west of the main building, such that it would have been behind the line of the wall of the south-east elevation of the property when extended to either side.  The submitted plans showed that it would be used as a garage and implement store. 

The key issue was whether the proposed outbuilding would be contrary to Class E, part E.1(b), which states that “Development is not permitted by Class E if … any part of the building, enclosure, pool or container would be situated on land forward of a wall forming the principal elevation of the original dwellinghouse”. 

The Council argued that the determination of which elevation is “the principal elevation” should be made by only considering those parts of the original dwellinghouse that still currently exist. 

The Inspector disagreed with the above.  He stated that, in his view, the above approach would be “highly artificial”, and he concluded that the determination of the principal elevation “should be based on the building in its original form”. 

The Inspector noted that the original north-west elevation contained the entrance and hall.  However, he noted that “visually and functionally this does not have the character of the principal elevation”, and that “it is not visually imposing and faces away from the highway”.  Instead, the Inspector noted that both the original south-west and south-east elevations are “visually significant”, and concluded that the original south-east elevation is the principal elevation “because of its visual character and position”.  He therefore concluded that the development would not be forward of a wall forming the principal elevation of the original dwellinghouse, and would be permitted development. 

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”.
[Relevant to: “Principal Elevation”, A.1(d), B.1(b), E.1(b), F.1, G.1(b)]. 

·       The “principal elevation” is not necessarily the elevation that fronts a highway.
[Relevant to: “Principal Elevation”, A.1(d), B.1(b), E.1(b), F.1, G.1(b)]. 

·       The principal elevation is not necessarily the elevation that contains the main entrance.
[Relevant to: “Principal Elevation”, A.1(d), B.1(b), E.1(b), F.1, G.1(b)]. 

·       The determination of which elevation forms “the principal elevation” should be based on the original building in its original form, rather than only considering those parts of the original building that still currently exist.
[Relevant to: “Principal Elevation”, A.1(d), B.1(b), E.1(b), F.1, G.1(b)]. 

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

·       Appeal Decision Notice:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00044-Appeal-Decision-Notice.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

·       OS Map:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00044-OS-Map.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

·       Proposed Drawings:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00044-Proposed-Drawings.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes