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 147 - Certificate of Lawful Development.

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


October 2010 - Code a00147


Summary of Case (appeal allowed): 


The property is a two-storey detached house. The principal elevation is the north elevation, and this fronts onto a footway, rather than a road (or the pavement of a road). The application was for a proposed single storey side extension which would project forward of the line of the principal elevation by approx 5m.  


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 following: 


“The footway in the current appeal is, in effect, a dead end. It allows pedestrian access only to the properties it serves and ends in front of a hedge. It does not connect, at its eastern end, to any other paths unlike other similar paths within the estate. There is no evidence whether the public has the right or not to pass and re-pass over the footway. The footway is akin to a cul-de-sac which in certain circumstances are not considered to be a highway. On the basis of the information before me, the footway is not an adopted highway and is not likely to be adopted. As a matter of fact and degree, I am of the opinion, in this case, that the footway is not a “highway”. Consequently, the proposal would not extend beyond a wall which fronts a highway and so Class A.1(d) is not applicable. As such the proposal does not constitute development requiring planning permission.” 


The Inspector allowed the appeal. 


Main Conclusions: 


·       This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular pedestrian accessway is not a highway.
[Relevant to: “Highway”, A.1(d), B.1(b), D.1(c), F.1(a), G.1(b), H.1(d)].


·       Where the principal elevation does not front a highway, an extension can extend in front of the principal elevation.
[Relevant to: “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)].



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