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 159 - 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 a00159


Summary of Case (appeal allowed): 


The property is a large detached house, which has previously been significantly extended. The application was for a proposed single storey rear extension. The outer wall of the proposed extension would project 4m from the rear wall of the main house, and the eaves / roof overhang would project a further 0.25m (to a total of 4.25m). 


Although drawings are available on the Council’s website, and include a proposed site plan, they do not appear to include the proposed floor plans and elevations. As such, please refer to the extract below from the appeal decision notice for a further description of the proposals. .


The key issue was whether the projection of the eaves / roof overhang by more than 4m beyond the rear wall of the original house 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 by more than 4 metres in the case of a detached dwellinghouse …”. 


The Inspector stated the following: 


“The property is a detached, single storey dwelling, originally built in 1860, and subsequently extended a number of times. The proposed conservatory would project 4 metres from the rear wall of an extension built in 1988/89 which links an earlier garage to the original building. On site it was discovered, and agreed, that the section of the original wall on the rear elevation measured 4.9 metres and that the proposed extension would ‘overlap’ or be attached to the original wall by about the length of a brick – roughly 200mm. 




The Council’s view is that the proposal would fail the limitation [A.1(e)] in 2 respects. First, it is argued the projecting eaves/roof overhang should be taken into account when calculating the depth of the projection – in which case the extension in this proposed development would be 4.25m deep. 


However, recently published technical guidance from the Department for Communities and Local Government has clarified this matter. The guidance, which is accompanied by an illustration, states on page 16 that “Measurement of the extension beyond the rear wall should be made from the base of the rear wall of the original house to the outer edge of the wall of the extension (not including any guttering or barge boards).” Interpretation of the Order is ultimately a matter for the courts. However, in the absence of any case law on this point being cited by either party, I see no reason not to follow the technical guidance. On that basis, I conclude the extension would not exceed 4m in depth”. 


The Inspector also concluded that Class A, part A.1(e) does not require a proposed extension to be directly attached to the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse. 


Main Conclusions: 


·       Where the rear wall of an extension would comply with the 3m/4m rear projection limit of Class A, part A.1(e), but the eaves / guttering / soffit / fascia of the extension would project slightly past this line, then this would still be permitted development.
[Relevant to: A.1(e)].


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


·       Appeal Decision Notice: 

·       Drawings: 





Download documents and diagrams of useful

Permitted Development information

permitted development documents download

 Appeal Decisions