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 154 - 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 a00154


Summary of Case (appeal dismissed): 


The property is a two-storey semi-detached house with an original rear projection (which is part-two-storey and part-single-storey). The application was for an extension within the side infill area, which would have length 5.0m as measured from the rear wall within the infill area, projecting 1.92m beyond the end of the original rear projection. 


The key issue was whether the proposals 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 was correct in stating that the GPDO does not refer to a “main” rear wall, as mentioned in the officer’s report on this case. She referred to an appeal decision in respect of an extension where the Inspector had found that the presence of an original rear projection meant that the house had two rear walls from which extensions could be built. That would clearly be the case in respect of the dwelling in this appeal. The effect of A.1(e) is, however, that the limiting measurement must be taken from the part of the wall(s) being extended from. Where the proposed enlargement extends over more than one rear wall, the measurement from each rear wall would need to be within the limitations ie the limits on extensions apply to any of the rear walls being extended beyond. 


In this case the bulk of the proposed conservatory would extend 5 metres beyond a rear wall of the dwellinghouse, which would clearly exceed the A.1(e) limit of 3 metres. The proposal would not be development permitted by the GPDO. The Council’s refusal was therefore well founded, and the appeal fails”. 


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)].


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