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 153 - Certificate of Lawful Development.

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


November 2010 - Code a00153


Summary of Case (appeal dismissed): 


The property is a very large two-storey detached house, set within substantial grounds and located within a conservation area. The application was for a proposed single storey rear extension and two proposed outbuildings. 


The outbuildings would be situated just rearward of the line of the rear elevation of the house, but just forward of the line of the rear elevation of the proposed single storey rear extension. 


The key issue was whether the proposed outbuildings would be contrary to Class E, part E.3, which states that “In the case of any land within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse which is article 1(5) land, development is not permitted by Class E if any part of the building … would be situated on land between a wall forming a side elevation of the dwellinghouse and the boundary of the curtilage of the dwellinghouse”. 


The Inspector stated the following: 


“The two proposed outbuildings would be located within the domestic curtilage to the rear of the existing rear elevation of the dwelling. In the absence of the proposed rear extension they would not be excluded as permitted development by the Class E.3 limitation. However, if the rear extension was built, both outbuildings would be sited between the rear extension and the boundary of the domestic curtilage. They would therefore lie between the side elevation of the dwellinghouse, as extended, and the side boundary of the property. 


Hence the overall effect of the implementation of the development proposal, which I must consider as a whole, would be that the outbuildings would not be permitted development by virtue of the Class E.3 limitation. A proposal making a claim of permitted development rights under more than one Class must be assessed against each and every one of the sub-clauses of the relevant part of Schedule 2 for each Class. If, as in this case, any of the limitations, exemptions or provisos is exceeded, then the whole development is not permitted by the GPDO”. 


Main Conclusions: 


·       Class E, part E.3 only prevents outbuildings from being within the area that is directly in between the side wall of the house and the side boundary. In other words, this limitation does not prevent outbuildings from being within the additional area that can be covered if considering the imaginary line of the side wall when extended forwards and rearwards.
[Relevant to: E.3].


·       For the purposes of Class E, part E.3, the phase “a side elevation of the dwellinghouse” includes the side wall of a non-original extension. As such, Class E, part E.3 would prevent an outbuilding from being within the area that is directly in between the side wall of such an extension and the side boundary.
[Relevant to: E.3].


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


·       Appeal Decision Notice: 

·       Proposed Site Plan: 

·       Proposed Elevations: 






Download documents and diagrams of useful

Permitted Development information

permitted development documents download

 Appeal Decisions