Appeal Decision 117-Permitted Development England

The property is a detached house set within large grounds. The application, which was received on 26/06/2010, was for an existing outbuilding (“spa”). The road runs west-east, the property is to the north of this road with its front elevation facing south, and the outbuilding is situated to the south-east of the property (i.e. not directly in front of the principal elevation, but still in front of the imaginary line of this principal elevation when extended to either side).

“In determining the application, the Council applied the current limitations of Class E which came into force on 1 October 2008 by way of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No.2) (England) Order 2008. The Appellant says that the building was commenced prior to this change in the legislation and that the pre-existing limitations should have been applied. Whilst he draws attention to related correspondence from August 2008, this talks of the erection of a garage block rather than the building as described in this application – albeit in the same position. Nonetheless, following its refusal the Council has accepted that the building was commenced before 1 October 2008 and that the pre-amendment limitations should be applied.”

The Inspector then concluded that the outbuilding is not permitted development on the basis that it did not comply with one of the limitations of the previous version of Part 1. However, the Inspector then also examined the hypothetical situation of whether the outbuilding would accord with the amended version of Part 1. In doing so, the key issue was whether the outbuilding would be contrary to Class E, part E.1(b), which states that “Development is not permitted by Class E if … any part of the building, enclosure, pool or container would be situated on land forward of a wall forming the principal elevation of the original dwellinghouse”.

“For the sake of completeness, and looking at the Class E limitations which came into force on 1 October 2008, I consider that had those limitations been applicable, the building would have offended limitation E.1(b) (as initially determined by the Council) in that the building is situated on land forward of a wall forming the principal elevation of the original dwellinghouse. The limitation does not say ‘between’ the principal elevation and the highway or ‘to the front of’ the principal elevation. It says ‘on land forward of’ and that includes land forward of but off to one side of a wall forming the principal elevation.”

· Where an application is received (on or after 01/10/2008) for existing works that were begun prior to 01/10/2008, then these existing works should be assessed against the previous Part 1 of the GPDO.
[Relevant to: “Applications received on or after 01/10/2008 for works that were begun prior to 01/10/2008”].

· The phrase “situated on land forward of a wall forming the principal elevation of the original dwellinghouse” applies not just to the area directly in front of the wall, but also to the area in front of the imaginary line of the wall when extended to either side.
[Relevant to: E.1(b)].

Links to the “Appeal Decision Notice” and other associated documents (e.g. drawings, etc):

· Appeal Decision Notice:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00117-Appeal-Decision-Notice.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes

· Proposed Site Plan:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00117-Proposed-Site-Plan.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes