Appeal Decision 21 - Certificate of Lawful Development.

The following appeal summary has been written by Steve Speed, and is available on his website www.planningjungle.com

26 August 2009 – 100 St Margarets Grove, Twickenham, TW1 1JG

Planning Inspectorate Reference: APP/L5810/X/08/2092809

London Borough of Richmond-upon-Thames Reference: 08/3203/PS192

Summary of Case (appeal dismissed):

·      The property is a two-storey house, and the application was for a ground floor extension and a roof extension.  The application was made prior to 1 October 2008, amended plans were submitted after 1 October 2008, and the Council’s decision was based on an assessment of the latter against the amended GPDO.

The Inspector disagreed with the above approach, and stated that her decision must be based on an assessment of the plans that were originally submitted against the previous GPDO.

The Inspector noted that the application had been submitted for a ground floor extension and a roof extension as one development.  She stated that the proposal (as one development) would not fall within Class A because it includes an alteration to a part of the roof of the dwellinghouse (i.e. the roof extension would not fall within Class A), and none of the other Classes are applicable (i.e. presumably on the basis that the ground floor extension would not fall within any of the other Classes)

Note: This decision appears highly unusual, because it implies that an application for works to a house can not be split into separate components and assessed against separate Classes.  For example, this would imply that an application for “a rear dormer and two front rooflights” would always have to be refused, because “as one development” it would not fall entirely within Class B or entirely within Class C.  This would appear to be contrary to many years of standard practice of LPAs and other Inspectors.

Main Conclusion:

·      Where an application is made for a ground floor extension and a roof extension (i.e. separate extensions, but submitted as part of one application), then a certificate can not be issued because the roof extension would not fall within Class A, and the ground floor extension would not fall within any other Class.  [Note: This decision appears highly unusual, and would appear to be contrary to many years of standard practice of LPAs and other Inspectors.]

Link to case on Planning Inspectorate website:

http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/ViewCase.asp?casename=APP/L5810/X/08/2092809&caseaddress=COO.2036.300.8.911960

Download documents and diagrams of useful

Permitted Development information