Appeal Decision 50 - Certificate of Lawful Development.

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

30 November 2009 – 25 Avern Road, West Molesey, KT8 2JB  

Planning Inspectorate Reference: APP/K3605/X/09/2105553 

Inspector: Andrew D Kirby RD* MA MSc FRTPI 

Elmbridge Borough Council Reference: 2009/0450 

Summary of Case (appeal dismissed): 

The property is a two-storey semi-detached house with an original two-storey rear projection.  The application was for a single storey extension to the side and to the rear of the original two-storey rear projection.  It should be noted that the property has an existing outbuilding close to the end of the original two-storey rear projection, but the proposals would not affect this, other than the proposed extension adjoining.

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 stated the following: 

“The proposed extension would project some 3.95m beyond the rear wall of the main part of the original dwellinghouse and 0.96m beyond the rear wall of the original outshot. Communities and Local Government have published guidance on some aspects of the amended Part 1. Of course it is only guidance and the GPDO has to be interpreted in terms of how it is written. Nevertheless that guidance makes clear that the relevant consideration is the part of the wall that is being extended from and that where there is an original rear addition/ outrigger there will be more than one original rear wall. I find nothing in the words of the GPDO that would argue for a different interpretation. There is no suggestion that A.1(e)(i) is intended to refer only to the rear wall that is furthest back regardless of which rear wall is being extended from. 

The proposed development would extend by more than 3m from the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse at that part where it would extend back from the main part of the house. The proposal has to be considered as a whole; it fails to satisfy the test in paragraph A.1(e)(i) and would not be permitted development under Class A”.

 

Main Conclusions: 

·       Where a property has an 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 stepped.
[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(f), A.2(c)]. 

Link to case on Planning Inspectorate website: 

http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/ViewCase.asp?casename=APP/K3605/X/09/2105553&caseaddress=COO.2036.300.8.1846872 

Link to LPA website: 

http://www.elmbridge.gov.uk 

Download documents and diagrams of useful

Permitted Development information