Appeal Decision 197 - 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 a00197
Summary of Case (appeal
The property is a large
detached house set within very considerable grounds. Indeed, the nearest highway is approx 150m from the house.
The south-east elevation is the principal elevation, and it was accepted by the Council that this elevation does
not front a highway. An original two-storey front projection currently projects forward from part of the width
of this front elevation (towards the north-eastern end of the front elevation). The application was for a
proposed (full-width) two-storey front extension, which would replace the original (part-width) two-storey front
The key issue was whether the
proposed side and rear extension would be contrary to Class A, part A.1(h), which states that “Development is
not permitted by Class A if … the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would extend beyond a wall forming a side
elevation of the original dwellinghouse, and would— (i) exceed 4 metres in height, (ii) have more than one
storey, or (iii) have a width greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse”.
The Inspector stated the
“The proposed extension
would exceed 4 metres in height, would have two storeys and would be as wide as the original dwellinghouse, so
the crucial question is whether it would extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original
There is an existing
projecting wing to [the application site] which occupies part of the site for the proposed extension, and would
be demolished to enable the extension to be built. This existing wing forms part of the “original dwellinghouse”
as defined by virtue of Article 1 of the GPDO.
The new extension would be
considerably wider than the existing projecting wing, and on this basis the Council contend that it would extend
beyond the south-western flank wall of that wing, which they correctly regard as a side elevation of the
original dwellinghouse. However, the projecting wing is to be demolished before the extension is built. Once
the wing has been removed, the proposed extension would not extend beyond a wall forming a side
elevation of the original dwellinghouse, and therefore I find that it would not be prohibited by
paragraph A.1(h) of the GPDO.
This finding is consistent
with the appeal decision issued on 5 February 2010, concerning a proposed extension to a property in [February 2010 - Code a00097],
which was submitted by the appellant. In that case, as here, an existing projecting element of the property was
to be demolished and a new, wider extension which was to be built in its place was found to constitute permitted
Inspector dismissed the appellant’s application for costs, and in doing so rejected the argument
that it was unreasonable for the Council to issue a decision that was contrary to an interpretation in a
previous appeal decision].
The phrase “a wall forming a
side elevation of the original dwellinghouse” does not apply to an original side wall that has
previously been demolished.
[Relevant to: “A side elevation of the original
dwellinghouse”, A.1(h), A.2(b), E.3].
Where the principal elevation
does not front a highway, an extension can extend in front of the principal
“Principal Elevation”, A.1(d)].
Furthermore, in such cases, the
amount by which the extension can extend beyond the principal elevation does not appear to be
directly* restricted by any limitation.
(*i.e. other than the general requirement to remain within the “curtilage”, and the general restriction of A.1(a)
that prevents more than 50% of the original garden being covered by buildings).
[Relevant to: “Principal Elevation”, A.1(d)].
Links to the “Appeal
Decision Notice” and other associated documents (e.g. drawings, etc):
Download documents and diagrams of