Appeal Decision 141 - 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
September 2010 - Code
Summary of Case (appeal
The property is a two-storey
semi-detached house with an existing single storey side garage. The application was for a proposed side
extension, to replace the existing garage. The front wall of the proposed extension would be in line with the
main front wall of the house (the principal elevation), but the eaves would have projected 0.25m forward of this
The key issue was whether the
proposed extension would be contrary to Class A, part A.1(d), which states that “Development is not permitted by
Class A if … the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would extend beyond a wall which— (i) fronts a highway, and
(ii) forms either the principal elevation or a side elevation of the original
The Inspector stated the
“There is no dispute that
the wall of the proposed extension would be in line with the wall of the principal elevation of the original
house and that this elevation fronts the highway. The proposal therefore does not offend
paragraph A.1(d)1 to that
The point of dispute is in
relation to the soffite (sic) and fascia [According to the Appellant] or the roof and Eaves [According to the
Council] of the extension which extend beyond the wall for a distance of some 0.25m. Eaves are specifically
referred to in paragraph A.1(c) and the only limitation is where 'the height of the eaves of the part of the
dwellinghouse enlarged, improved or altered would exceed the height of the eaves of the existing dwellinghouse'.
The eaves in this case would not exceed that limitation.
In considering whether a
householder development proposal is permitted development the general principle to be employed is that all of
the relevant parts and classes within those parts of the GPDO provisions need to be taken into account.
Therefore in this case the combination of A.1(c) and A.1(d) would bring the proposed development within
permitted development rights.”
Where the front wall of a side
extension would be in line with the principal elevation (i.e. in accordance with the forward projection limit
of Class A, part A.1(d)), but the eaves / guttering / soffit / fascia of the extension would project slightly
forward of this line, then this would still be permitted development.
[Relevant to: A.1(d)].
Links to the “Appeal Decision
Notice” and other associated documents (e.g. drawings, etc):
· Appeal Decision
· Existing 3D
· Proposed 3D
Download documents and diagrams of