Appeal Decision 23 - Certificate of Lawful Development.
This appeal decision summary and
assessment has been produced by Planning Jungle Limited. For more information, please go to www.planningjungle.com/?p=20
- Code a00023
Summary of Case (appeal
The property is a two-storey
mid-terrace house with an original two-storey rear projection. Directly to the rear of the latter is a single
storey rear extension, which appears to have replaced (and enlarged) an original single storey rear projection.
The application was for an extension within the side infill area, which would have projected 3m beyond the end
of the original two-storey rear projection, wrapping around the rear of the latter to replace the existing
single storey rear extension.
The key issue was whether the proposals would be contrary to Class A, part A.1(e), which states that “development
is not permitted by Class A if … the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would … extend beyond the rear wall of the
original dwellinghouse by more than … 3 metres”.
The Inspector concluded that “where the rear of a house has an original rear projection … then the house has two
rear walls from which enlargements could be built”, and that “what is relevant is the rear wall on the part of the
building that is being extended from”. In the Inspector’s opinion, “the GPDO would permit the enlargement of the
dwelling from the rear wall of the original projection for a depth of up to 3m but only for the width of that rear
wall”. The Inspector also noted that “it may also be possible, depending on compliance with the GPDO, that there
could be an extension from the shallow rear wall for 3m”. The Inspector that this conclusion is in accordance with
guidance in the
DCLG - Informal Views from Communities and Local Government” ( Dec 2008, updated Jan 2009,
superseded Aug 2010).
Where a property has a
(part-width) original rear projection, then there will be more than one wall that constitutes “the rear wall
of the original dwellinghouse” for the purposes of Class A, part A.1(e). This means that where the original
rear elevation of a property is stepped, the 3m/4m rear projection limit will be similarly
This would appear to contradict at least one other appeal decision – for further information see the entry in
the “Reference Section” on “The rear wall of the original dwellinghouse”].
[Relevant to: “The rear wall of the original
dwellinghouse”, A.1(e), A.1(f), A.2(c)].
Where a property has a
(part-width) original rear projection, an extension to the rear of this is limited to the width of the
original rear projection.
[Relevant to: A.1(e), A.1(f)].
Links to the “Appeal Decision
Notice” and other associated documents (e.g. drawings, etc):
· Appeal Decision
Download documents and diagrams of