Appeal Decision 102 - Certificate of Lawful Development.

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

15 February 2010 – 3 Dungarvan Avenue, Putney, London SW15 5QU  

Planning Inspectorate Reference: APP/H5960/X/09/2115919 

Inspector: R A Sexton BSc(Hons) DipTP MRTPI 

London Borough of Wandsworth Reference: 2009/2914 

Summary of Case (appeal dismissed): 

The property is a two-storey mid-terrace house, with a small original two-storey rear projection (depth only 1.2m). The application was for a proposed single storey rear extension across the full width of the site, which would have projected 3m from the main rear wall of the house and 1.8m from the original two-storey rear projection. 

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 flank wall of the original addition is 1.21m deep and about 7m high. It serves to enclose, in part, what is shown on the accompanying plan as a kitchen on the ground floor and bedroom above. It is an addition of substance and in my view must be regarded as an element of the house in its own right. It is not, in contrast, a feature within the rear elevation of the property as, for example, a chimney breast might be (on the facts); or a decorative feature that has been applied to the rear elevation of the house.  

Considering its dimensions and function, I consider the flank of this existing rear addition to constitute, as a matter of fact and degree, a wall. And, it is self-evidently a wall that forms a side elevation to this original part of the dwellinghouse. Accordingly, since the rear extension would have a width greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse it would be excluded from being permitted development under Class A in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 by paragraph A.1(h)(iii). Whether one describes the part of the house in question as a “projection” or “step” does not alter my conclusion that it is, as a matter of fact and degree, also a wall to a side elevation.”

Main Conclusions: 

·       The side wall of an original rear projection (i.e. the side wall facing the infill area) is “a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse” for the purposes of the GPDO.
[Note: This would appear to contradict at least one other appeal decision – for further information see the entry in the “Contents” section on “A side elevation of the original dwellinghouse”].
[Relevant to: “A side elevation of the original dwellinghouse”, A.1(d), A.1(h), A.2(b), A.3(b), B.2(c), C.2, E.3, G.1(b)].

·       For example, an extension to the side of an original rear projection where the extension has a width greater than half the width of the original house is not permitted development.
[Note: This would appear to contradict at least one other appeal decision – for further information see the entry in the “Contents” section on “A side elevation of the original dwellinghouse”].
[Relevant to: “A side elevation of the original dwellinghouse”, A.1(d), A.1(h), A.2(b), A.3(b), B.2(c), C.2, E.3, G.1(b)].

Link to case on Planning Inspectorate website: 

http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/ViewCase.asp?casename=APP/H5960/X/09/2115919&caseaddress=COO.2036.300.8.2661788 

Link to LPA website: 

www.wandsworth.gov.uk 

Download documents and diagrams of useful

Permitted Development information