Appeal Decision 29 - Certificate of Lawful Development.

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

22 September 2009 – Bywood, Honeypot Lane, Edenbridge, Kent, TN8 6QJ  

Planning Inspectorate Reference: APP/G2245/X/09/2100324 

Inspector: Neil Roberts BA DipTP MRTPI 

Sevenoaks District Council Reference: SE/08/02470/LDCPR 

Summary of Case (appeal dismissed): 

The property is a detached house.  The application was for a proposed outbuilding, which would have used as a bedroom.  The proposed outbuilding would have been sited on a raised platform, which appears from the drawings to have height 0.4m. 

The first key issue was whether the proposed outbuilding would be contrary to Class E, part E.1(g), which states that “Development is not permitted by Class E if …it would include the construction or provision of a veranda, balcony or raised platform”. 

The Inspector noted that paragraph I of Part 1, which provides an Interpretation of Part 1, states that that ““raised” in relation to a platform means a platform with a height greater than 300 millimetres”.  He therefore concluded that the proposed outbuilding not be permitted development. 

The second key issue was whether the proposed outbuilding would be contrary to Class E, part E.1(h), which states that “Development is not permitted by Class E if … it relates to a dwelling”. 

The Inspector stated the following: 

“In my judgement the commonsense interpretation of E.1(h) is that it applies where the proposal is to construct a building which provides primary residential accommodation, such as living rooms or bedrooms, which are basic elements of a dwelling. As the proposed building is intended to include a bedroom, and having regard to the reasons for wanting extra bedroom accommodation (*), I consider the proposal conflicts with E.1 (h).”

[* = The appellants had stated that the existing accommodation in the house is cramped, that an existing lounge is having to be used as a bedroom, and that the proposed outbuilding would provide private sleeping accommodation for the appellants]. 

Main Conclusions: 

·       Where a proposed outbuilding would involve a raised platform with height greater than 300mm, it would not be permitted development.
[Relevant to: E.1(g)]. 

·       Where a proposed outbuilding would include a bedroom, which would add to the ordinary living accommodation provided by the property, it would not be permitted development.
[Relevant to: E.1(h)]. 

Link to case on Planning Inspectorate website: 

http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/ViewCase.asp?casename=APP/G2245/X/09/2100324&caseaddress=COO.2036.300.8.1431191 

Link to LPA website: