Appeal Decision 100 - 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 a00100
Summary of Case (appeal
The property is a two-storey
mid-terrace house, and the application was for a proposed single storey rear extension. The outer wall of the
extension would have projected 3m from the rear wall of the main house. However, the eaves and guttering would
have then projected a further 0.35m. Furthermore, the applicant had not specified what materials would be used
for the extension.
The first key issue was
whether the projection of the eaves by more than 3m beyond the rear wall of the original house would be contrary
to Class A, part A.1(e), which states that “development is not permitted by Class A if … the enlarged part of
the dwellinghouse would … extend beyond the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse by more than … 3
The Inspector stated the
“The 2008 amendments to
GPDO Part 1 adopted an impact-based approach. I believe that the 3 metre maximum projection from the rear wall
of the dwellinghouse mentioned in the amendments was intended to refer to the main body of the extension to be
permitted and that it is not intended that the projection of the eaves and gutters should normally be
taken into account. In most circumstances, the projection of the eaves and gutters would make little, if any,
significant difference to the impact of the extension under consideration. In the appeal case, there is nothing
out of the ordinary about the eaves and gutters that suggest to me that they have any effect on the impact of
the proposed extension. I therefore conclude, as a matter of fact and degree, that the projection due to the
eaves and gutters of the proposed extension is de minimis and should be disregarded in assessing
the projection of the proposed extension from the rear wall of the existing dwellinghouse. I accept that the
eaves and gutters here project more than was the case in the Halifax example referred to by the Council
[September 2009 - Code a00024] but not to the extent that I believe that a different
approach to that adopted by the Inspector in that case is warranted.”
The second key issue was
whether the proposed extension would be contrary to Class A, part A.3(a), which states that “Development is
permitted by Class A subject to the following conditions— … (a) the materials used in any exterior work (other
than materials used in the construction of a conservatory) shall be of a similar appearance to those used in the
construction of the exterior of the existing dwellinghouse”.
The Inspector stated the
“On the Council’s second
point, the external materials have not been specified in the proposal but I do not think there is any reason to
believe that the proposed extension would be constructed in breach of condition A.3(a). There is no reason
why an LDC could not draw attention to this condition by means of a suitable note.”
Where the rear wall of an
extension would comply with the 3m/4m rear projection limit of Class A, part A.1(e), but the eaves /
guttering / soffit / fascia of the extension would project slightly past this line, then this would still be permitted development.
[Relevant to: A.1(e)].
A certificate of lawful
development should be issued even if the applicant has not demonstrated full compliance with all of
the conditions of the Class, so long as it would be possible for the conditions to be
would appear to contradict at least one other appeal decision – for further information see the entry in the
“Reference Section” on “Conditions”].
[Relevant to: “Conditions”, A.3(a), A.3(b), A.3(c),
B.2(a), B.2(b), B.2(c), C.2, F.1, H.2(a), H.2(b)].
Links to the “Appeal
Decision Notice” and other associated documents (e.g. drawings, etc):
Download documents and diagrams of