Appeal Decision 96 - Certificate of Lawful Development.

February 2010 - Code a00096  

Summary of Case (appeal allowed): 

The property is a two-storey semi-detached house.  Its front elevation is staggered, with a two-storey square bay window that projects forward of the remaining section containing the front door.  The bay window section has width 3.4m and is on the side of the front elevation nearest the adjoining number 43, whilst the front door section has width 1.9m and is on the side of the front elevation nearest the main side wall.  The application was for a side extension that would have projected forward to the line of the bay window section, thereby projecting past the line of the adjoining front door section. 

The key issue was whether the proposed extension would be contrary to Class A, part A.1(d), which states that “Development is not permitted by Class A if … the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would extend beyond a wall which— (i) fronts a highway, and (ii) forms either the principal elevation or a side elevation of the original 

Dwellinghouse”. 

The Inspector stated the following: 

“On the matter of the front wall, the Council suggests that the façade of the existing house is formed of two parts by virtue of the fact that there is a projecting bay window which stands forward of the section of wall in which the 

front door of the dwelling is positioned. Insofar as the proposed extension would align with the front of the bay window and stand forward of the adjacent section of the façade containing the front door the Council alleges that, having regard to the content of sub-paragraph A.1(d) of the Order, the development, the subject of the appeal, is not permitted development. 

I consider this to be an irrational description of the front wall of the house at the appeal site. The bay window forms by far the greater element of the front wall of the house being some 3.4 m in length as opposed to the 1.9 m length of the section that contains the front door. As such it is my opinion that this greater element should be recognised as the constituting the front wall for the purpose of interpreting the relevant part of the Order. Insofar as the proposed extension would not project beyond the line of the bay window I consider that for the purpose of sub-section A.1(d) of the Order it comprises permitted development.” 

The Inspector then also looked at whether the side elevation, which is at an approx 45 degree angle to Woodnesborough Road, “fronts” the latter.  However, on the basis that the front garden of 45 Poulders Gardens is between the side elevation of the application site and the highway, he concluded that it does not. 

Main Conclusions: 

·       Where the front elevation of a property is staggered, then only a single wall can form “the principal elevation”.
[Note: This would appear to contradict at least one other appeal decision – for further information see the entry in the “Reference Section” on “Principal Elevation”].
[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=a00096-Appeal-Decision-Notice.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

·       Aerial Photo:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00096-Aerial-Photo.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

·       Illustration:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00096-Illustration.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

Download documents and diagrams of useful

Permitted Development information