ask us a question on permitted development           Permitted Development England
How to build a home extension  without Planning Permission using your PD rights - Oct. 1st 2008



Home Page About Us FAQ Advertise on this site Disclaimer Privacy Contact Us Site Map

Appeal Decision 138 - Certificate of Lawful Development.

This appeal decision summary and assessment has been produced by Planning Jungle Limited.  For more information, please go to


September 2010 - Code a00138


Summary of Case (appeal dismissed): 


The property is a two-storey mid-terrace house. The property has an original two-storey rear projection (width 2.4m), followed by an original single storey outhouse (width 1.0m).. The application was for a proposed single storey rear extension, which would have been attached to the rear wall of the original two-storey rear projection, replacing the original single storey outhouse. The proposed extension would have projected 3m from the end of the rear wall of the (demolished) outhouse, and would have extended sideways to cover the full width of the site, leaving an enclosed courtyard (yard) for the length of the infill area. 


It should be noted that the extension has already been constructed with a greater depth (4m), and that this application proposed a reduction in its depth (to 3m). 


The key issue was whether the proposed extension would be contrary to 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 appellant’s case is based on the fact that, as described in paragraph 6 above, the proposed alterations here would result in an extension 3.0 deeper than the former w c. The appellant argues that the w c’s rear wall forms the rear wall for the purposes of A.1(e)(i), and that no part of the altered extension would extend more than 3 m from that rear wall. So, it is argued, a certificate should be issued. 


The Council regard the 2008 Order differently. They say that in this case there were 3 rear walls of the original dwellinghouse, ie the rear walls of (a) the main part of the house, of (b) the outrigger, and of (c) the external w c. They argue that the alterations in this case would leave an extension more than 3 m deep from both (a) and (b). So they conclude that the development is not permitted by A.1(e)(i). They accept, however, that the Order is open to interpretation. 


One interpretation, and it is no more than that, is provided by the published informal views of the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) on the changes brought about by the 2008 Order. On this part of the Order the question is posed “Does the reference to extending beyond the rear wall mean any rear wall?” as “The issue arises in all cases where the rear of the house is not built as a single wall, but is cranked.” The answer DCLG give is that “The relevant consideration here is the part of the wall being extended from. Therefore where there is an original rear addition/outrigger there will be 

more than one original rear wall.” 


I am drawn towards accepting DCLG’s (and the Council’s) interpretation. To do otherwise would mean that extremely deep extensions would be permitted automatically by the Order in cases where original dwellings had much more marked steps than in the case before me. I do not believe that that can have been the intention of the 2008 Order. The appellant’s case rests in effect on the wording of A.1(e)(i) being “extend beyond the rearmost wall …”, but that is not what the Order says.” 


[Note: The Inspector refers to the DCLG - Informal Views from Communities and Local Government (Dec 2008, updated Jan 2009, superseded Aug 2010), even though by the date of the decision this guidance document had already been replaced by the “DCLG - Permitted development for householders - Technical guidance” (August 2010). Nevertheless, in my opinion, this would not have affected the above decision because both guidance documents support the same interpretation that the Inspector applied]. 


Main Conclusions: 


·       Where a property has a (part-width) 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 “Reference 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)].


·       Furthermore, where a property has a (part-width) original rear projection, it is not possible to erect an extension within the infill area that projects more than 3m/4m from the original rear wall within the infill area by leaving a gap (e.g. courtyard) between the extension and the latter. In other words, the phrase “extends beyond the rear wall” not only applies to extensions directly attached to that rear wall, but can also apply to extensions directly to the rear of that rear wall.
[Note: This would appear to contradict at least one other appeal decision – for further information see the entry in the “Reference 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)].


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


·       Appeal Decision Notice: 

·       OS Map: 

·       Drawings: 





Download documents and diagrams of useful

Permitted Development information

permitted development documents download

 Appeal Decisions