Appeal Decision 10 - Certificate of Lawful Development.

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

16 July 2009 – 12B Pound Pill, Corsham, Wiltshire, SN13 9SZ  

Planning Inspectorate Reference: APP/J3910/X/09/2096909 

North Wiltshire District Council Reference: 08/02832/CLP 

Summary of Case (appeal dismissed): 

·       The property is a detached house.  The road “Pound Pill” runs north-south, and the property is situated to the east of this road, with a set-back of approx 30m.  The west wall of the property is relatively narrow, and consists of a former garage, now with a window.  One of the north walls of the property is relatively narrow and contains a secondary door.  The other north wall is relatively wide and contains a secondary door along with 2 patio doors and a window.  The main front door is in an inset area between the two north walls.

The application was for an outbuilding to the north-east of the house.  The Council argued that the north wall is “the principal elevation” and that therefore the proposed outbuilding would be “situated on land forward of a wall forming the principal elevation of the original dwellinghouse” and would not be permitted development.  The appellant argued that the west wall was the principal elevation, and that therefore the outbuilding would be permitted development.

The Inspector acknowledged that background documents suggest that a property can have more than one principal elevation, but noted that such documents do not have the weight of the final version of the GPDO.  He concluded that the phrase ‘ a wall forming the principal elevation’ is singular, and therefore a property can only have one principal elevation.  Furthermore, this phrase can only be applied to a single wall, meaning that 2 walls, even facing in the same direction, can not form a ‘principal elevation’.

The Inspector acknowledged that the letter from CLG to local planning authorities dated 10/09/2008 stated that “the Order, therefore, simply specifies that a principal elevation fronts a highway”.  However, he concluded that this letter is factually incorrect, and that in some circumstances a side elevation can front a highway and a principal elevation need not do so.

The Inspector concluded that the Council’s approach to determine the ‘principal elevation’ based on a dictionary definition of “principal” as “first in rank or importance; chief” is a reasonable one.  He stated that most frequently a house’s front door can be regarded as being on the principal elevation, but that this does not always need to be the case.  In this particular case, the Inspector decided that the north wall which is relatively wide and contains a secondary door along with 2 patio doors and a window (but not the main front door) is the principal elevation.

The Inspector then concluded that the proposed outbuilding would be forward of the line of this wall, and therefore not be permitted development.  Although not specifically stated by the Inspector, this conclusion also implies that the phrase “situated on land forward of a wall forming the principal elevation of the original dwellinghouse” applies not just the area directly in front of the wall, but also the area in front of the imaginary line of the wall when extended to either side. 

Main Conclusions: 

·      There can only be one principal elevation. (Note: This would appear to contradict the appeal decision dated 22 May 2009 for 27 St Werburgh’s Road). 

·      Furthermore, the phrase ‘a wall forming the principal elevation’ is singular, and therefore can only applied to a single wall.  2 walls, even facing in the same direction, can not form a ‘principal elevation’.  (Note: This would appear to contradict the acceptance that the phrase “the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse” (which is also singular) can be applied to more than one wall, such as the appeal decision dated 24 July 2009 for 20 Serpentine Road) 

·      The ‘principal elevation’ does not necessarily have to front a highway. 

·      An approach to determine the ‘principal elevation’ based on a dictionary definition of “principal” as “ first in rank or importance; chief ” is a reasonable one.  

·      The phrase “ situated on land forward of a wall forming the principal elevation of the original dwellinghouse” applies not just the area directly in front of the wall, but also the area in front of the imaginary line of the wall when extended to either side. 

Link to case on Planning Inspectorate website: 

http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/ViewCase.asp?casename=APP/Y3940/X/09/2096909&caseaddress=COO.2036.300.8.1178387