Appeal Decision 114 - Certificate of Lawful Development.

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

15 April 2010 – Field Bank Farm, Withinlee Road, Prestbury, Macclesfield, Cheshire, ST10 4AT  

Planning Inspectorate Reference: APP/R0660/X/09/2117784 

Inspector: Claire Sherratt DipURP MRTPI 

Cheshire East Council Reference: 09/1316M 

Summary of Case (appeal dismissed): 

The property is a two-storey detached house, which is in the shape of a “T”, with the top of the “T” being the front elevation of the property facing the highway, and the arm of the “T” being an original two-storey rear projection coming off the centre of the rear elevation. As such, the property has two infill areas, one on each side of the original two-storey rear projection, and within each of these infill areas there is an existing single storey rear extension. The application was for a proposed first floor rear extension on top of one of these existing single storey rear extensions, and for an extension to an existing outbuilding. The proposed first floor rear extension would have projected 3m from the rear-facing wall within the infill area. 

The first 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— (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: 

“The first floor extension would provide additional floorspace above an existing ground floor extension to provide an en-suite bathroom. The application form describes the extension as a rear extension although the Council has amended the description to a side extension. The footprint of the property is broadly ‘T’ shaped, with the main frontage parallel to the road and the central arm extending to the rear. It therefore has more than one rear wall and more than one wall forming a side elevation.  

Class A of Part 1 of the GPDO permits the enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwelling subject to a number of limitations set out in section A.1. The Council relies on A.1 (f) which is relevant to rear extensions and A.1 (h) relevant to side extensions.  

The case presented on behalf of the appellant is that the extension is a rear extension and it is only necessary to satisfy the limitations contained in A.1 (f). There is no dispute between the parties that the limitations set out in Class A.1 (f) would be satisfied. I agree. However, I do not consider the extension should only be assessed against this criterion. The extension that is the subject of this appeal would extend from both a rear and side elevation wall. As such the limitations set out in A.1 (h) are also applicable.  

Class A.1 (h) stipulates that the enlargement of a dwellinghouse that would extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse is not permitted development if it would (i) exceed 4 metres in height; (ii) have more than one storey; and (iii) have a width greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse. The proposed development would exceed 4m in height and result in more than one storey. It would not therefore be permitted development by virtue of Class A of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the GPDO.”  

The Inspector then examined the issue of discrepancies with the submitted drawings, and stated the following: 

“The Council notes discrepancies in the height of the building indicated on the proposed and existing plans. I note that drawing number 904/06 (existing east elevation) denotes ‘site dimension of 4.000 from ground level to the ridge’ in respect of the existing outbuilding. The corresponding proposed drawing (drawing number 904/16) has no such annotation and when the measurements are compared, a higher ridge height is indicated. The same measurement is in excess of 4.0m - approximately 4.2m. As the ground levels fall away both to the west and south this is the highest ground level. 

Although the appellant stipulates that the ridge and eaves height of the extension would be the same as the existing building, which do not exceed 4.0m or 2.5 m respectively, this is not reflected in the submitted drawings. These indicate that the roof height of the resultant building would exceed 4m in height. Whilst this may not be the intention of the appellant, any certificate of lawfulness for planning purposes must relate to the submitted plans. Based on the information available, as a matter of fact and degree, the proposed extension would not be permitted development by virtue of Class E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the GPDO.” 

Main Conclusions: 

·       Where a property has an original rear projection, then there will be more than one wall that constitutes “the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse” for the purposes of Class A, part A.1(e). This means that where the original rear elevation of a property is stepped, the 3m/4m rear projection limit will be similarly stepped.
[Note: This would appear to contradict at least one other appeal decision – for further information see the entry in the “Contents” section on “The rear wall of the original dwellinghouse”].
[Relevant to: “The rear wall of the original dwellinghouse”, A.1(e), A.1(f), A.2(c)].

·       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 more than one storey 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)].

·       For example, an extension to the side of an original rear projection where the extension exceeds 4m in height 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)].

·       A property can have more than one wall that constitutes “a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse” for the purposes of the GPDO.
[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)].

·       It is incorrect to take the approach that an extension must either be a “rear extension” or “side extension”, and then to apply either A.1(e)/(f) or A.1(h) respectively. Where an extension would extend from both an original rear wall and an original side elevation, then both A.1(e)/(f) and A.1(h) will be applicable.
[Relevant to: A.1(e), A.1(f), A.1(h)].

·       Where an applicant submits contradictory information (for example, where one drawing indicates that a particular limitation or condition would be met, but another drawing indicates that the same limitation or condition would not be met) then the application should be refused.
[Relevant to: “General”].

Link to case on Planning Inspectorate website: 

http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/ViewCase.asp?casename=APP/R0660/X/09/2117784&caseaddress=COO.2036.300.8.2819334 

Link to LPA website: 

www.cheshireeast.gov.uk 

Download documents and diagrams of useful

Permitted Development information