Appeal Decision 128 - Certificate of Lawful
This appeal decision summary and
assessment has been produced by Planning Jungle Limited. For more information, please go to www.planningjungle.com/?p=20
July 2010 - Code a00128
Summary of Case (appeal
The property is a detached
house, with its south elevation fronting the road. It has a rectangular shape, with narrower south and north
elevations, and wider west and east elevations. The application was for a proposed single storey extension,
which would have covered the whole of the north elevation, and would have projected eastward to a point approx
12m beyond the line of the east elevation. It would have a dual-pitched roof with eaves at 2.9m and ridge-line
The Council argued that the
south elevation of this property is the “principal elevation”. By this interpretation, the proposed extension
would extend beyond the north (rear) elevation by more than 4m, and would extend beyond the east (side)
elevation with a width (as measured from west to east) that would be more than half the width of the house (as
measured from west to east).
The appellant argued that the
east elevation of this property is the “principal elevation”. By this interpretation, the proposed extension
would extend beyond the north (side) elevation with a width (as measured from north to south) that would be less
than half the width of the house (as measured from north to south), and the amount by which it would extend
beyond the east (principal) elevation would not be directly restricted by any limitation (because the principal
elevation does not front a highway).
The Inspector stated the
“The appeal property sits
on the corner of, and is accessed from, [the road] and when viewed from this approach appears as a modest house
with a somewhat unbalanced, featureless, facade with non-central porch and single windows. When entering into
the garden to the east the elevation with which one is faced is a stark contrast. Large bay windows sit under
individual protruding gable ends with entrance towards the centre of the facade. The west and north elevations
are also plain facades with smaller windows. To the north and west are three detached properties sitting on
similar plot sizes. I have no reason to disagree with the appellant’s view that these houses formed part of an
The appellant argues that
the east facing elevation is the principal elevation as it has all the architectural detail and the main living
rooms facing out from it. He refers to the document Changes To Householder Permitted Development 1 October 2008
- Informal Views From Communities And Local Government which states; “in the vast majority of cases it would be
perfectly clear what the principal elevation was i.e. the part of the house that fronts the highway and which
usually contains the main entrance”. It goes on to say; “in a minority of cases there will have to be an
assessment by the planning authority on a case by case basis as to what constitutes the principal elevation”.
I have no doubt that this
is one such case and I do not accept the Council’s view. The porch on the south facing elevation does give the
impression, from the road, that it could be serving the principal elevation. However, the double bay windows,
serving the east elevation and positioned asymmetrically, are typical of what would normally be expected to be
found on a front elevation with entrance to the centre. When viewed as a whole and set against the immediate
neighbours to the north and west, to my mind, any person viewing the property would conclude that the entrance
was to ‘the side or flank’ of the house and the eastern elevation was the principal elevation of the
For these reasons I find
that, in the particular circumstances of this case, the eastern elevation should be regarded as the principal
elevation. Therefore, the conservatory would not extend beyond the rear (west facing) wall of the original
dwellinghouse by more than 4 metres, or exceed 4 metres in height, and would not fall foul of Class A, A.1(e) of
I now turn to criterion
(h)(iii) of section A.1 of the GPDO. The Council have interpreted the width of the proposed development to be 20
metres. I do not accept that view. Had I found the principal elevation was to the south then the width of the
main house would be between the east and west sides. That would then apply to the proposed extension. However,
given the principal elevation is, in my opinion, that facing east then it follows that the south and north
elevations are the sides from which the measurement of width should be taken.
When that argument is
applied to the proposed extension it is evident that whilst the proposed extension would extend beyond a wall
forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse it would not be greater than half the width of the
original dwellinghouse. The appellant’s figures and drawings are undisputed and show the measurement of the
existing dwelling (north to south) at approximately 18 metres and the proposal (north to south) at approximately
6 metres and thereby less than half the width. Therefore the proposal would also meet criterion (h)(iii) of the
Inspector appears to have taken the existing two-storey flat-roof extension on the north elevation to be
“original”. As such, in his assessment of Class A, part A.1(h)(iii), he has included the width of this existing
extension in his measurement of the width of the “original dwellinghouse” and excluded it from his calculation
of the width of “the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse”. For this to be correct, this existing two-storey
flat-roof extension would have had to have been constructed prior to 1948].
Subsequent to the above appeal decision, the
DCLG - Informal Views from Communities and Local Government” ( Dec 2008, updated Jan 2009,
superseded Aug 2010) was replaced by the
“DCLG - Permitted development for householders - Technical guidance” (August
This appeal decision provides an
example of the types of factors that should be taken into consideration when determining which
elevation is “the principal elevation”.
[Relevant to: “Principal Elevation”, A.1(d), B.1(b),
E.1(b), F.1, G.1(b)].
The “principal elevation” is
not necessarily the elevation that fronts a
[Relevant to: “Principal
Elevation”, A.1(d), B.1(b), E.1(b), F.1, G.1(b)].
The principal elevation is
not necessarily the elevation that contains the main entrance.
[Relevant to: “Principal Elevation”, A.1(d), B.1(b),
E.1(b), F.1, G.1(b)].
Where the principal elevation
does not front a highway, an extension can extend in front of the principal
“Principal Elevation”, A.1(d)].
Furthermore, in such cases, the
amount by which the extension can extend beyond the principal elevation does not appear to be
directly* restricted by any limitation.
(*i.e. other than the general requirement to remain within the “curtilage”, and the general restriction of A.1(a)
that prevents more than 50% of the original garden being covered by buildings).
[Relevant to: “Principal Elevation”, A.1(d)].
For the purposes of Class A,
part A.1(h), “width” should be measured in the direction parallel with the line of the principal
elevation. For example, if the principal elevation is (say) the south elevation, then width should be
measured from west to east, and not from north to south.
[Relevant to: A.1(h)].
Links to the “Appeal
Decision Notice” and other associated documents (e.g. drawings, etc):
Existing and Proposed East
Existing and Proposed North
Download documents and diagrams of