Appeal Decision 97 - Certificate of Lawful Development.

February 2010 - Code a00097  

Summary of Case (appeal allowed): 

The property is a two-storey mid-terrace house, with an original single storey rear projection.  The width of the latter structure is just under half of the width of the property.  The application was for a proposed single storey rear extension, which would have replaced the original single storey rear projection and covered the full width of the property. 

The key issue was whether the proposed extension would be contrary to Class A, part A.1(h), which states that “Development is not permitted by Class A if … the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse, and would— … (iii) have a width greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse”. 

The Inspector stated the following: 

“The Council said the flank wall of the original rear extension offshoot must be regarded as a “side wall” of the original dwellinghouse. Since the proposed extension would extend beyond that side wall and would be greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse, the development would fail to comply with condition A.1(h)(iii) to the amended Order …” 

My view, however, is that the Council should have taken due account of the intention to demolish the existing rear extension as part of the proposed extension works. Removal of the rear extension as part of permitted development would not amount to demolition requiring planning permission. Its removal would remove its side elevation. In that circumstance, I see no applicability of condition A.1(h) to the amended Order to this proposal. There are no other limitations which preclude Mr Elson’s proposed 3m deep full width single storey rear extension being development permitted by the Order.” 

[The above conclusion should be compared with the appeal decision for November 2009 - Code a00044, which concluded that the determination of which elevation forms “the principal elevation of the original dwellinghouse” 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.  There may be a contradiction between these two conclusions]. 

Main Conclusions: 

·       The phrase “a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse” does not apply to an original side wall that has previously been demolished. 
[Relevant to: “A side elevation of the original dwellinghouse”, A.1(h), A.2(b), E.3]. 

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

·       Appeal Decision Notice:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00097-Appeal-Decision-Notice.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

·       OS Map:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00097-OS-Map.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

·       Drawings:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00097-Drawings.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

Download documents and diagrams of useful

Permitted Development information