Appeal Decision 35 - Certificate of Lawful Development.

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

29 October 2009 – 2 Croydon Lane, Banstead, SM7 3AS  

Planning Inspectorate Reference: APP/L3625/X/09/2102574 

Inspector: D Roger Dyer BA, DipArch, RIBA, FCIArb, Barrister 

Reigate and Banstead Borough Council Reference: P/08/02391/CLP 

Summary of Case (appeal allowed): 

The property is a single-storey detached house.  Although the property is “U”-shaped, it is the front elevation that contains the indented part (i.e. the top of the “U”), so that the rear and side elevations of the property are flat (i.e. not stepped).    The application was for a proposed extension that would have projected 4m from the rear elevation, and then wrapped-around the corner to project 7.1m (less than half the width of the house) from the side elevation.  

The key issue was whether Class A, part A.1(e), and Class A, part A.1(h) would allow such an extension.  For reference, the relevant parts of these two limitations are as follows: 

Class A, part A.1(e): 

“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 by more than 4 metres in the case of a detached dwellinghouse, or 3 metres in the case of any other dwellinghouse”. 

Class A, part A.1(h): 

“Development is not permitted by Class A if … the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse, and would …have a width greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse” 

The Council refused the application with the following reasons for refusal: 

1. “The proposed development would not be permitted development by virtue of Article 3 and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, (h) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2008 (as amended), as part of the side extension would project beyond the rear wall of the existing elevation of the original dwelling house.” 

2. “The proposed development would not be permitted development by virtue of Article 3 and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, (e) (i) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2008 (as amended), as the part of the rear extension would project beyond the side wall of the existing elevation of the original dwelling house.” 

The Inspector disagreed with the Council, and stated the following: 

“The issue concerns whether part of the proposed extension would fall outside the limits set out in the GPDO. It is clear that any extension that lies immediately behind, but would not be wider than, the rear wall of the original dwelling is permitted. Equally, it is plain that any extension at the side of the dwelling if not more than half the width of the original dwelling and which would not be deeper from front to back than the original dwelling would be permitted development. 

The main principle to be considered is that the enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse is permitted development subject to the limitations imposed at A1 (a) – (i). In this case the element of the proposed extension that wraps round the rear corner of the original dwelling does not breach those limitations and is not otherwise explicitly excluded. The other parts of the proposed extension fall within those limitations as indicated above. It can thus be regarded as an enlargement which is permitted development and the appeal must succeed.” 

[Note: In my opinion, it is not clear whether the Inspector concluded that the “corner” part of the proposed extension would accord with Class A, part A.1(e) on the basis that it would not “extend beyond the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse” (i.e. because it is not directly to the rear of the rear wall) or on the basis that it would not “extend beyond the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse by more than by more than 4 metres” (i.e. because it extends beyond the “line” of the rear wall, but not by more than 4m). 

Similarly, in my opinion, it is not clear whether the Inspector concluded that the “corner” part of the proposed extension would accord with Class A, part A.1(h) on the basis that it would not “extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse” (i.e. because it is not directly to the side of the side wall) or on the basis that it would not “extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse [by more than] half the width of the original dwellinghouse” (i.e. because it extends beyond the “line” of the side wall, but not by more than half the width of the house). 

However, regardless of the exact reason why the Inspector concluded – in my view rightly – that the proposed rear and side extension would be permitted development, this situation where the rear and side elevations of the property are flat is clearly different from the situation where a property has an original rear projection or an original side projection.  In the latter situation, the same rear and side extension might project more than 4m from the rear wall of the original side projection, or more than half the width of the house from the side wall of the original rear projection, and not be permitted development on such a basis]. 

Main Conclusions: 

·       Where the rear and side elevations of a property are flat (i.e. not stepped), Class A, part A.1(e), and Class A, part A.1(h) would allow* an extension to project 3m/4m from the rear elevation and then wrap-around the corner to project half the width of the house from the side elevation.
(*subject to compliance with all other limitations and conditions, of course)
[Note: This would appear to contradict at least one other appeal decision – for further information see the entry in the “Contents” section on “A.1(e)”]
[Relevant to: A.1(e), A.1(h)]. 

Link to case on Planning Inspectorate website: 

http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/ViewCase.asp?casename=APP/L3625/X/09/2102574&caseaddress=COO.2036.300.8.1586837