Appeal Decision 227 - 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
March 2011 - Code a00227
Summary of Case (appeal
The property is a two-storey
semi-detached house, which has an existing single storey rear extension with depth approx 4m. The application
was for a proposed first floor rear extension with depth approx 2.9m.
The key issue was whether the
proposed first floor rear 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”.
The Inspector stated the
“The planning history of
the appeal property indicates that the existing ground floor rear extension was built in 1993 as an addition to
the original dwelling. I have no evidence to indicate otherwise. The 3m depth limitation in A.1(e) refers to
enlargements having a single storey. However, the correct way to view the property is as a dwelling having an
enlarged part which is more than one storey. This is because both A.1(e) and A.1(f) treat as the “enlarged
part” of a dwelling any part which extends beyond the rear wall of the “original dwellinghouse” – in other
words, the dwelling as originally built.
The provisions of
A.1(f) therefore apply to both the existing and proposed extensions in so far as, together, they comprise the
enlarged part of the dwelling. It says that development is not permitted if the enlarged
part extends beyond 3m of the rear wall of the original dwelling. On my visit, I measured the depth of the
existing extension at around 4m. In the light of this, there are no permitted development rights for any
further enlargement. This is made clear in the technical guidance issued by the Government in August 2010 to
help householders and others understand the provisions of Part 1 as amended. The text and diagram at the top of
p20 of the guidance are directly relevant to this case. A.1(g) applies with regard to distances to plot
boundaries but as an additional, not an alternative, requirement.
The appellant points out
that the technical guidance does not have statutory force and that the Council should not make decisions based
on it alone. I agree that it is not of itself law but, as an aid to interpreting the provisions of the GPDO, it
amounts to a material consideration to which I attach significant weight. No evidence in relation to the appeal
property has been offered as to why I should not follow its provisions in this case. As to the site at 225 Great
West Road, Hounslow on which, the appellant says, a LDC was granted in similar circumstances, the Council accept
that that was before the position had been clarified in the technical guidance.”
Class A, part A.1(f) applies
not only to a proposed two-storey rear extension, but also to a proposed first floor rear
extension on top of an existing ground floor rear extension.
[Relevant to: A.1(f)].
If a property has an
existing ground floor rear extension with depth greater than 3m, then it would not be possible
to erect any first floor rear extension on top of the latter, because Class A, part A.1(f) would restrict
both storeys to a depth of 3m.
[Note: This would appear to contradict
at least one other appeal decision – for further information see the entry in the “Reference Section” on
Links to the “Appeal
Decision Notice” and other associated documents (e.g. drawings, etc):
Download documents and diagrams of