Appeal Decision 109 - Certificate of Lawful Development.

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

16 March 2010 – 20 Leeds Road, Eccleshill, Bradford, BD2 3BD  

Planning Inspectorate Reference: APP/W4705/X/09/2116861 

Inspector: David Pinner BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI 

City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council Reference: 09/01229/CLP 

Summary of Case (appeal dismissed): 

The property is a two-storey semi-detached house, with a single storey side projection (along the full length of the side elevation of the main house). The application was for a first floor side extension, which would have been directly on top the existing single storey side projection, and for a single storey rear extension, which would have covered the combined width of the rear elevation of the main house plus the rear elevation of the existing single storey side projection. 

The first key issue was whether the first floor side 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— (i) exceed 4 metres in height, (ii) have more than one storey, or (iii) have a width greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse”. 

The appellant argued that the existing single storey side projection replaced an original single storey side projection, and that therefore the flank wall of both of these structures constitutes the “side elevation of the original dwellinghouse”. As the proposed first floor extension would not extend beyond the line of this flank wall of the original single storey side projection, it would not be contrary to Class A, part A.1(h). The Council argued that this previous single storey side projection was, in fact, a separate dwelling, 20A Leeds Road, occupied independently of 20 Leeds Road and therefore not part of the original dwellinghouse. 

The Inspector stated the following: 

“Both parties agree that, whatever it was, this side extension was demolished in the mid 1970’s. 

This latter fact is crucial and provides a simple answer. In the use of the present-tense word “forming” in A.1(h) of the 2008 provisions, it is clear to me that any wall forming part of the side elevation of the original dwellinghouse has to exist for it to have any relevance to the PD provisions. In this case, the relevant wall was demolished some 30 years before this building project started and it can therefore have no bearing on whether or not the proposed second storey of the side extension is PD. I conclude, therefore that the side first floor extension is not permitted by the 2008 provisions, being specifically excluded by A.1(h) (i) and (ii).” 

The second key issue was whether the proposed single storey rear 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— (i) exceed 4 metres in height, (ii) have more than one storey, or (iii) have a width greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse”. 

The Inspector stated the following: 

“However, my finding with regard to the status of the long-demolished extension also has a bearing on the rear extension. Because it is the full width of the dwelling as extended by the side extension, it projects beyond a wall forming the side elevation of the original dwellinghouse (the gable) and it has a width greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse. It is therefore within the category of development not permitted at A.1(h)(iii) of the 2008 provisions. In arriving at this conclusion, I have taken note of the floorplans, which shows that the part of the building which falls foul of A.1(h)(iii) is incorporated into the rear extension rather than the side extension. The external appearance of the building is also consistent with this finding.” 

It should be noted that the amount by which the proposed single storey rear extension would have extended beyond the original side wall would not, in itself, have been more than half the width of the original house. As such, the above conclusion was on the basis that the overall width of the proposed single storey rear extension would have been more than half the width of the original house. 

Main Conclusions: 

·       The phrase “a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse” does not apply to an original side wall that has previously been demolished.
[Relevant to: “A side elevation of the original dwellinghouse”, A.1(h), A.2(b), E.3].

·       Under Class A, part A.1(h), where part of a proposed extension would extend beyond an original side wall, the restriction against having “a width greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse” applies to the entire extension (i.e. not just to that part of the extension that extends beyond the original side wall). In other words, the overall width of the proposed extension can not be greater than then half the width of the main house, even if the part of the extension that extends beyond the original side wall does not do so by more than half the width of the house.
[Note: This would appear to contradict at least one other appeal decision – for further information see the entry in the “Contents” section on “A.1(h)”]
[Relevant to: A.1(h)].

Link to case on Planning Inspectorate website:

http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/ViewCase.asp?casename=APP/W4705/X/09/2116861&caseaddress=COO.2036.300.8.2761464 

Link to LPA website: 

www.bradford.gov.uk 

Download documents and diagrams of useful

Permitted Development information