ask us a question on permitted development           Permitted Development England
How to build a home extension  without Planning Permission using your PD rights - Oct. 1st 2008



Home Page About Us FAQ Advertise on this site Disclaimer Privacy Contact Us Site Map

Appeal Decision 243 - Certificate of Lawful Development.

This appeal decision summary and assessment has been produced by Planning Jungle Limited.  For more information, please go to

May 2011 - Code a00243


Summary of Case (appeal dismissed) 


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 following: 


“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 planning permission. 


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. 


Main Conclusions: 


·       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 dwellinghouse”].


Links to the “Appeal Decision Notice” and other associated documents (e.g. drawings, etc): 


·       Appeal Decision Notice: 

·       OS Map: 

·       Drawings: 

·       Costs Decision Notice: 





Download documents and diagrams of useful

Permitted Development information

permitted development documents download


 Appeal Decisions