Appeal Decision 104 - 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
March 2010 - Code a00104
Summary of Case (appeal
The property is a single
storey detached house. The application was for two proposed side extensions (one on each side) and a proposed
rear extension, all of which would be separate structures. One of the proposed side extensions would have had
width 3.8m, exactly half the width of the main house (7.6m), and the other would have had width 2.7m, less than
half the width of the main house.
The key issue was whether the
combined width of the two proposed side extensions 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
“The phrase “the enlarged
part” is clearly a reference back to the opening phrase in Class A itself, namely: “the enlargement … of a
dwellinghouse”. So if a certificate were sought for only one of these side extensions, in the absence of any
other objection, it would plainly be granted. Put another way, it is the part to be or which has been enlarged
that has to be considered, and its width compared to that of the original dwellinghouse. If then a certificate
were sought for the second one, it would thus again be the part either to be or which had been enlarged which
would fall to be considered, and its width likewise compared with that of the original dwellinghouse.
The sub-paragraph would
not make sense if the two extensions were to be aggregated, whether on separate or simultaneous applications,
not least because all of it is written in the singular. Each enlarged part in this case would extend beyond a
side wall but neither could extend beyond more than one, nor would either of them extend to the rear of the
building or be combined with any rear extension. Each thus falls to be considered individually. If the intention
was to restrict the total additional width permitted to half that of the original dwellinghouse, then the Order
could, would and should say so. There are indeed other provisions within it which set such overall limits, for
example Schedule 2, Part 1, paragraphs A.1(a), B.1(c), D.1(a) and E.1(a), not to mention overall height limits,
distance restrictions and the like. The existence of those provisions can only lend support to this
Where it is proposed to erect
two separate side extensions, one on each side of a detached house, then each of these side
extensions could have a width up to half the width of the original house (i.e. this limit would not
apply to the combined width of the two side extensions).
[Relevant to: A.1(h)].
Links to the “Appeal
Decision Notice” and other associated documents (e.g. drawings, etc):
Download documents and diagrams of