Appeal Decision 192 - Certificate of Lawful
This appeal decision summary and
assessment has been produced by Planning Jungle Limited. For more information, please go to www.planningjungle.com/?p=20
January 2011 - Code a00192
Summary of Case (appeal
The property is a two-storey
end-of-terrace house. In between the application site (number 122) and number 120, there is a vehicular
accessway, which then runs behind the rear gardens of numbers 118 to 224, providing access to garages at the end
of these rear gardens. The application was for a proposed single storey side extension, which would have fronted
onto this vehicular accessway.
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
“No 122 fronts onto West
End Road, a busy main road. The houses in this part of the road are grouped into short blocks of terraces. No
122 stands at the end of such a block. A service road runs between it and its neighbour to the north and this
road provides access to the rear of some of the houses. The only issue in this appeal is thus whether this road
is a highway or not.
For the purposes of
interpreting Class A, there is no specific definition of a highway, but the common law meaning of a highway
is a “way over which all members of the public are entitled to pass and repass”. Consequently, a ‘highway’
in the context of Class A is a public highway, not a private road. It also need not be a
thoroughfare, but can be a cul-de-sac.
The access road next to No
122 is a narrow track, just wide enough for a car. It is surfaced in gravel, and largely overgrown by grass. It
is ‘T’ shaped and serves a single garage behind No 124 to the south, and appears to provide access to the three
back gardens of Nos 120-116 to the north. It does not appear to have the characteristics of a public highway,
but rather is a private access to a small number of properties.
The appellant claims it is
a private service road with no general public access and this was borne out by my observations on site. The
Council have provided no evidence as to the status of the access road. Consequently, I consider that on the
basis of what little evidence I do have, the balance of probabilities suggests the access track is not a
‘highway’ for the purposes of Class A, and so the extension is permitted
The term “highway”
includes any way over which members of the public have the right to pass and
“Highway”, A.1(d), B.1(b), D.1(c), F.1(a), G.1(b), H.1(d)].
The term “highway”
can include a cul-de-sac.
[Relevant to: “Highway”, A.1(d), B.1(b), D.1(c), F.1(a),
This appeal decision provides an
example of where it was concluded that a particular vehicular accessway is not a
[Relevant to: “Highway”,
A.1(d), B.1(b), D.1(c), F.1(a), G.1(b), H.1(d)].
Links to the “Appeal
Decision Notice” and other associated documents (e.g. drawings, etc):
Download documents and diagrams of