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

1 June 2010 – 25 Blenheim Grove, Peckham, London SE15 4QS  

Planning Inspectorate Reference: APP/A5840/X/09/2117985 

Inspector: Pete Drew BSc (Hons) DipTP (Dist) MRTPI 

Southwark Council Reference: 09-AP-0879 

Summary of Case (appeal dismissed): 

The property is a two-storey mid-terrace house within a conservation area. The property has a long original single storey rear projection, which covers part of the width of the rear elevation. Directly to the side of this, within the infill area, the application would have erected a single storey side infill conservatory, which would have projected beyond the end of the original single storey rear projection. 

The key issue was whether the proposed extension would be contrary to Class A, part A.2(b), which states that “In the case of a dwellinghouse on article 1(5) land, 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”. 

The Inspector stated the following: 

“Paragraph A.2(b) states that development is not permitted if the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse. In this case the flank wall of the rear projection must be regarded as a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse. No case has been made that the rear projection was not part of the “original” dwelling house as defined in Article 1 of the Order. Since the rear extension subject of this appeal extends beyond this wall, it cannot be permitted development.” 

[Note: In my opinion, the proposed extension would also have been contrary to Class A, part A.1(e), on the basis that it would have extended beyond the original rear wall within the infill area (which a number of other appeal decisions have confirmed constitutes part of “the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse”) by more than 3m. However, as is not uncommon with appeal decisions, once the Inspector had concluded that the proposed extension would have been contrary to at least one limitation (and therefore not permitted development), he did not then proceed to consider whether or not it would also have been contrary to any other limitations]. 

Main Conclusions: 

·       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 within a conservation area 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)].

·       Furthermore, even the side wall of an original single storey rear projection (i.e. the side wall facing the infill area) is “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)].

Link to case on Planning Inspectorate website: 

http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/ViewCase.asp?casename=APP/A5840/X/09/2117985&caseaddress=COO.2036.300.8.2842898 

Link to LPA website: 

www.southwark.gov.uk 

Download documents and diagrams of useful

Permitted Development information