Appeal Decision 118 - Certificate of Lawful Development.

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

26 May 2010 – 53 Chillerton Road, London, SW17 9BE  

Planning Inspectorate Reference: APP/H5960/X/09/2118434 

Inspector: Antony Fussey JP BSc(Hons) DipTP MRTPI 

London Borough of Wandsworth Reference: 2009/3049 

Summary of Case (appeal dismissed): 

The property is a two-storey semi-detached house, with an original single storey rear projection (outhouse with depth 1.9m) across part of the width of its rear elevation. The width of this outhouse has previously been reduced, and on the remainder of the rear elevation a single storey rear extension with depth 3.5m has previously been constructed. The application was for a proposed single storey extension directly to the rear of this outhouse, to the same depth as the existing single storey rear extension (i.e. depth 1.6m from the rear of the outhouse, which is equivalent to depth 3.5m from the line of the remainder of the rear elevation). The application was also for a proposed rear dormer, and a proposed outbuilding. 

The first key issue was whether the rear wall of the outhouse should be classed as part of “the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse” for the purposes of Class A, part A.1(e), which states that “development is not permitted by Class A if … the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would … extend beyond the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse by more than … 3 metres”.  

The Inspector stated the following (note the Inspector refers to the outhouse as an “offshoot”): 

“… it is argued [by the appellant] that there are in effect 2 original rear walls, and that the 3m “permitted development zone” is measured from each one, so that the proposed extension would be within the zone in front of the outshoot. 

… 

It is clear to me that the original house’s rear wall was staggered, with the offshoot’s rear extending further out than the house’s main rear wall. I find no suggestion that section A.1(e)(i) is intended to refer only the rear wall which is set furthest back, regardless of which rear wall is being extended. 

Indeed it seems to me that where walls comprising a rear elevation are staggered, the “permitted development zone” is staggered to match. 

… 

I conclude on this matter that, as the proposed extension would protrude less than 3m from that part of the house’s original rear wall which would be extended, then it would accord with the provisions of section A.1(e)(i).” 

The second key issue was whether it makes any difference that the rear wall of the outhouse has been previously altered for the purposes of Class A, part A.1(e), which states that “development is not permitted by Class A if … the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would … extend beyond the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse by more than … 3 metres”. 

The Inspector stated the following: 

“The Council argues that a door has replaced an original window in the offshoot’s rear wall, and a monopitch has replaced the original flat roof. However this does not indicate to me that the original wall no longer exists; it seems rather to have been altered. In any event, it seems to me that, even if the Council is correct, this does not prevent the original line from being used to assess whether the extension would be permitted development. I see no implication that “original” means “unaltered”.” 

The third key issue was whether the proposed outbuilding would be contrary to Class E, part E.1(d), which states that “Development is not permitted by Class E if … the height of the building, enclosure or container would exceed … (ii) 2.5 metres in the case of a building, enclosure or container within 2 metres of the boundary of the curtilage of the dwellinghouse”. 

The Inspector stated the following: 

“This part of the application concerns an outbuilding, 2.5m high, and adjoining the site’s side and rear boundaries. 5 roof lanterns would extend 300mm above a flat roof; figured dimensions show them 2m from the site boundary but the Council said that the distance scales at less. As I describe below, this distance is not relevant to my consideration, but I note that the plan is endorsed “do not scale”. In any event, figured dimensions have precedence over those produced from scaling if there is any discrepancy. 

Class E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the GPDO permits the provision of domestic outbuildings, with some exceptions. Those relevant to this appeal are paragraphs E.1(d)(ii) and (iii) where “the height of the building would exceed (ii) 2.5m in the case of a building … within 2m of the boundary of the curtilage of the dwellinghouse, or (iii) 3 metres in any other case”. 

It is clear to me that this wording means that a building is not permitted development if it comes within 2m of a boundary, and if any part of it is higher than 2.5m. I find no support for the contention that the provision 

only relates to those parts of the building within the 2m distance. 

The current appeal building would clearly be within 2m of the boundary, and part of it would be higher than 2.5m. Therefore under the terms of paragraph E.1(d)(ii) it would not benefit from permitted development rights.” 

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)].

·       Where a property has an original rear projection, then even if this is only single storey, the rear wall of this projection is still a “rear wall of the original dwellinghouse” for the purposes of Class A, part A.1(e).
[Relevant to: “The rear wall of the original dwellinghouse”, A.1(e), A.1(f), A.2(c)].

·       Where the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse has been previously altered, its original line should be used for the purposes of Class A, part A.1(e).
[Relevant to: “The rear wall of the original dwellinghouse”, A.1(e), A.1(f), A.2(c)].

·       Where parts of a proposed outbuilding are within 2m of a boundary, the 2.5m height limit applies not just to those parts within 2m of the boundary, but to all parts of the proposed outbuilding.
[Relevant to: A.1(g), E.1(d)].

·       Where there is a discrepancy on a drawing between annotated dimensions and those produced from scaling, the annotated dimensions have precedence.
[Relevant to: ”General”].

Link to case on Planning Inspectorate website: 

http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/ViewCase.asp?casename=APP/H5960/X/09/2118434&caseaddress=COO.2036.300.8.2894836 

Link to LPA website: 

www.wandsworth.gov.uk 

Download documents and diagrams of useful

Permitted Development information