Appeal Decision 243 - 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
May 2011 - Code a00243
Summary of Case (appeal
The application site is a
pair of semi-detached houses. The application included the proposed insertion of a new front door, which would
extend across the existing boundary between the two houses to create a single combined entrance, in connection
with the deconversion of the two houses into a single house.
The key issue was whether
such works would constitute “Development within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse” and fall within the scope of
Part 1 of the GPDO.
The Inspector stated the
“I saw at the time of my
site visit that the appeal building was laid out as two semi-detached dwelling houses (No 10 and No 12), as it
was at the time of the application. Each dwelling house has a separate front door and there is no internal
access from one dwelling house to the other.
The appellants, in support
of their appeal, rely on the planning permission granted by the provisions of Article 3(1) of the Town and
Country Planning (General Permitted Development Order 1995 (as amended) (the ‘GPDO’). Such permission is granted
for classes of development described as “permitted development” in Schedule 2 of the GPDO. Part 1 of Schedule 2
concerns development within the curtilage of a dwelling house. The appellant states that this assessment of
permitted development should only be taken upon accepting that the use is lawful. However, an LDC can not be
conditional on the conversion of the building into a single dwelling house.
At the date of the
application the building had not been converted to a single dwelling house. As such the assessment of whether
the insertion of two windows and a door is permitted by virtue of Class A of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the GPDO
has to be made in relation to two dwelling houses.
The proposed windows would
replace the front doors to each of the dwelling houses, known as Nos 10 and 12. The windows would individually
be development within the curtilage of a dwelling house and would comply with all the limitations and conditions
within Class A of the GPDO. As such the insertion of the two windows does not constitute development requiring
However, the proposed door
would be sited between the two windows and extend across the party wall between Nos 10 and 12. As such the door
would not be wholly within the curtilage of one or other of the existing dwelling houses. As the works would
not be within the curtilage of a dwelling house they would not be permitted development and would constitute
development requiring planning permission”.
The Inspector then rejected
an application by the appellant for costs against the Council.
Where works would be situated within the curtilage of more than one house (note: to a
more significant extent than simply building up across the full width of a party wall), then such works would
not fall within the scope of Part 1 of the GPDO.
[Relevant to: “Development within the curtilage of a
Links to the “Appeal
Decision Notice” and other associated documents (e.g. drawings, etc):
Download documents and diagrams of