Appeal Decision 1 - Certificate of Lawful Development.

The following appeal summary has been written by Steve Speed, and is available on his website www.planningjungle.com

8 April 2009 – 56-58 Ridge Road, London N21 3EA  

Planning Inspectorate Reference: APP/Q5300/A/08/2087329 

London Borough of Enfield Reference: TP/08/1368 

Summary of Case (appeal dismissed): 

·      The application was for a proposed outbuilding. Several issues were covered by the decision notice:

1 – The application was received by the Council before 01/10/2008, works had not yet begun by that date, and the Council refused the application after 01/10/2008 on the basis that the proposals would not comply with the amended GPDO. The Inspector concluded that the Council was incorrect, and instead should have considered whether the proposals would have been permitted development under the old GPDO. However, the Inspector did then note that a certificate issued in this way would be of no benefit to the applicant because between the application date and the decision date there would have been a material change in the matters determining lawfulness.

2 – The proposed two storey outbuilding would have been sunk into the ground by approx 2 metres so that its ridge height would have been 4 metres above the existing ground level. The inspector stated that the removal of such a large quantity of soil would be an engineering operation which would be necessary before the construction of the building could commence, and stated that there is nothing in the GPDO to indicate that this form of development is PD.

3 – The proposed outbuilding would have been built across the curtilages of two dwellinghouses. The Inspector stated that such works are not permitted development, as Part 1 of the GPDO refers to “the curtilage of a dwellinghouse” (i.e. in the singular). 

Main Conclusion: 

·      Where an application was received before 01/10/2008, yet determined on or after 01/10/2008 (and the proposed works had not been begun by that date) it was incorrect for the LPA to determine the application on the basis of the amended GPDO. (Note: This would appear to contradict the appeal decision dated 28 July 2009 for 66 Marlborough Avenue, the appeal decision dated 29 April 2009 for 30 Ferncroft Avenue, and the appeal decision dated 18 May 2009 for 9 Eastholme).

·      The GPDO does not permit significant excavation works to allow an outbuilding to be significantly sunken into the ground. 

·      An outbuilding built across the curtilages of two dwellinghouses would not be permitted development. 

Link to case on Planning Inspectorate website: 

http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/ViewCase.asp?casename=APP/Q5300/X/08/2091717&caseaddress=COO.2036.300.8.824581 

Link to LPA website (general search page – use above application reference): 

http://forms.enfield.gov.uk/swiftlg/apas/run/wphappcriteria.display 

Download documents and diagrams of useful

Permitted Development information