Appeal Decision 95 - Certificate of Lawful Development.
This appeal decision summary and
assessment has been produced by Planning Jungle Limited. For more information, please go to www.planningjungle.com/?p=20
February 2010 - Code a00095
Summary of Case (appeal
The property is a two-storey
end-of-terrace house, and the application was for existing works. In 2004, planning permission was
granted by the Council for works including a first floor side extension, with a hipped roof, and a rear dormer.
These works have been constructed along with a hip-to-gable extension over the first floor side extension, and
an enlargement to the rear dormer (which now approaches the edge of the gable end).
It appears that the applicant
applied for a certificate of lawfulness on the basis that parts of the existing works were covered by the
planning permission granted by the Council in 2004, whilst the remaining parts were covered by permitted
The Inspector stated the
“The Council contend that
the development shown in the LDC application is not permitted under the provisions of Class B of Part 1 of
Schedule 2 to the GPDO as it has been undertaken as a continuous operation in conjunction with other extensions
to the appeal property, built following a grant of planning permission in October 2004. That permission (Ref:
TP/04/1750) was for a first floor side extension, single storey front extension and the construction of a rear
The burden of proof in
this appeal lies with the appellantbut she states only that works to the first floor, and
partly the roof loft space, had been undertaken under TP/04/1750. No evidence has been provided to show the
actual dates of any construction work, including completion of the development permitted in 2004. This implies
to me, therefore, that the Council are correct in their submission that the “proposals” shown in the LDC
application would not be permitted under Class B of Part 1 of the GPDO as they were not undertaken as
a discrete development, rather they were built as part and parcel of the larger extensions allowed under the
2004 planning permission. Indeed, for the works shown in the application before me to be considered as
permitted development, the previous development would have to have taken place and been completed. If they
had not, as appears to be the case, the “existing elevations and plans” submitted as part of the LDC application
were incorrect and they would have shown the property only as it was proposed to appear.
It follows that the
development that has taken place, as a single operation, is a much larger alteration to the property involving a
ground floor front extension, a first floor side extension, including the extension of the roof to provide a
gable end in place of the original hipped roof, and the formation of a large rear dormer to facilitate
conversion of loft space into residential accommodation. The totality of such works far exceeds what would be
permitted under the provisions of the GPDO, in Class B or in that Class and other Classes within Part 1 of
Schedule 2 and, crucially, it is not the development shown in the LDC application before
It is not possible as a
single operation to erect an extension where part of it has been granted planning permission by the Council
and the other part is permitted development.
[Relevant to: “General”].
In an application for a
certificate of lawfulness, the burden of proof is firmly on the
[Relevant to: "General”].
Links to the “Appeal
Decision Notice” and other associated documents (e.g. drawings, etc):
Download documents and diagrams of