Appeal Decision 120 - Certificate of Lawful Development.
This appeal decision summary and
assessment has been produced byPlanning Jungle Limited. For more information, please go to www.planningjungle.com/?p=20
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 “Reference 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
(or other article 1(5) land) is not permitted
development. [Note: This would appear to contradict
at least one other appeal decision – for further information see the entry in the “Reference 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”. [Note:
This would appear to contradict at least one other appeal decision – for further information see the entry in
the “Reference 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)].
Links to the “Appeal
Decision Notice” and other associated documents (e.g. drawings, etc):