Appeal Decision 201 - 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 a00201
Summary of Case (appeal
The property is a two-storey
detached house in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The property is situated to the east side of Hound
House Road, and has short west and east elevations, and long north and south elevations. The application was for
a very large two-storey extension (with projection 11m) on the north elevation and a single storey extension
(with projection 4m) on the south elevation.
The applicant argued that the
north elevation of the property, which contains the main front door, is “the principal elevation”, and as such
the proposed two-storey “front” extension and single storey “rear” extension would be permitted development. The
Council argued that both the north and south elevations of the property are “side” elevations, and as such the
proposed two-storey “side” extension and single storey “side” extension would not be permitted development. It
should be noted that the submitted drawings stated that the walls of the proposed extensions would be “rendered
to match existing property”.
The first key issue was
whether the proposed extensions would be contrary to Class A, part A.2(a), which states that “In the case of a
dwellinghouse on article 1(5) land, development is not permitted by Class A if … it would consist of or include
the cladding of any part of the exterior of the dwellinghouse with stone, artificial stone, pebble dash, render,
timber, plastic or tiles”.
The Inspector stated the
“As the Council stated,
the site is located in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and is therefore located for the purposes of the
GPDO on Article 1(5) land. I acknowledge that the Council stated that it had no objection to the extension being
built with a rendered finish to the walls but Class A.2 is very specific and states that ‘development is not
permitted by Class A if – (a) it would consist of or include the cladding of any part of the exterior of the
dwelling house with …. render,….’. The proposed development shows the outside walls of most of the development
to have a rendered finish and, therefore, it is a development that requires planning
As a second key issue, the
Inspector then looked at the issue of the extent of the “curtilage” of the property. The Inspector quoted
various caselaw, and concluded that the extent of the curtilage of this property is less than the extent of the
grounds around the property.
The Inspector then declined
to comment on the issue of whether the north elevation is the principal elevation, by stating the
“The main difference of
opinion concerned which were the principal and side elevations on this property. Even if I was to give my
opinion on the matter I would not be able to grant a Certificate and, therefore, there would be no certificate
establishing conclusively which elevation is the principal elevation. In those circumstances my ‘opinion’ would
tie the hands of the local planning authority, the appellant and indeed, any inspector who might have to
consider this question in the future and give a conclusive answer. For example a revised application could be
submitted that overcame the two reasons set out earlier in this decision as to why the development is not
permitted development and leave only the question of what is the principal elevation.
Neither the Council nor,
if necessary, another inspector, should have my view put to them by an appellant if I supported his/her view and
likewise an applicant/appellant should not have it used against him/her on a revised proposal if I supported the
Council’s view. Whilst I appreciate that much of what the parties have submitted has been to try to establish
the answer to this question, it would not be appropriate for me to make a formal determination on that matter
when the appeal must be dismissed for the two reasons I have already set out.”
conservation area (or
other article 1(5) land), Class A, part A.2(a) not only prevents the cladding of
the main house, but also prevents the cladding of
[Relevant to: A.2(a)].
This appeal decision provides an
example of where it was considered that the extent of the “curtilage” of a property was less
than the extent of the grounds around the property.
[Relevant to: “Curtilage”].
Links to the “Appeal
Decision Notice” and other associated documents (e.g. drawings, etc):
Download documents and diagrams of