Appeal Decision 187 - Certificate of Lawful Development.

January 2011 - Code a00187

Summary of Case (appeal dismissed): 

The property is a detached house, and the application was for a proposed two-storey rear extension. As I was unable to view the drawings for this application, please refer to the extract below from the appeal decision notice for further details. 

The key issue was whether the proposed extension would be contrary to Class A, part A.1(f), which states that “Development is not permitted by Class A if … the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would have more than one storey and … (i) extend beyond the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse by more than 3 metres, or (ii) be within 7 metres of any boundary of the curtilage of the dwellinghouse opposite the rear wall of the dwellinghouse”. 

The Inspector stated the following: 

“[The application site] is a two storey detached house. The proposed two storey extension would extend some 7.7 metres from the rear of the upper floor wall of the original dwelling. Class A of Part 1 to Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 as amended (which I will refer to as the GPDO) applies to the enlargement, improvement or other alteration of dwellinghouses. Such development is permitted by Class A provided it does not fall within any of the specified exclusions as set out in paragraphs A.1 and A.2. Paragraph A.1(f) provides that development is not permitted if the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would have more than one storey and (i) extend beyond the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse by more than 3 metres, or (ii) be within 7 metres of any boundary of the curtilage of the dwellinghouse opposite the rear wall of the dwellinghouse.  

The appellant’s view is that the correct interpretation of this paragraph is that the word “or” linking parts (i) and (ii) means that complying with either part overcomes the limitation. In this case it is argued that the proposed extension would comply with part (ii) as it would not be within 7 metres of the rear boundary. 

However, my interpretation of Class A.1(f) is that any proposed development which is excluded by either of the limitations would not be permitted development. The recently published guidance, Permitted Development for Householders – Technical Guidance (DCLG August 2010) makes it clear at page 20 that the Class A.1(f)(ii) exclusion is in addition to the Class A.1(f)(i) exclusion, as does the Extensions mini-guide published on the Planning Portal, which states that “Extensions of more than one storey must not extend beyond the rear wall of original house by more than three metres or be within seven metres of any boundary opposite the rear wall of the house.” I conclude, therefore, that the proposed extension, by extending more than 3 metres beyond the rear elevation of the original dwellinghouse, would not be permitted development”. 

The Inspector also rejected a suggestion by the applicant that a certificate could be issued subject to conditions, and rejected the appellant’s application for costs against the Council. 

Main Conclusions: 

·       No conclusions (because too straightforward).

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

·       Appeal Decision Notice:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00187-Appeal-Decision-Notice.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

·       Costs Decision Notice:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00187-Costs-Decision-Notice.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

Download documents and diagrams of useful

Permitted Development information