Appeal Decision 50 - 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
November 2009 - Code a00049
Summary of Case (appeal
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 latter structure.
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
“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”.
Where a property has a
(part-width) 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
This would appear to contradict at least one other appeal decision – for further information see the entry in
the “Reference Section” on “The rear wall of the original dwellinghouse”].
[Relevant to: “The rear wall of the original
dwellinghouse”, A.1(e), A.1(f), A.2(c)].
Links to the “Appeal
Decision Notice” and other associated documents (e.g. drawings, etc):
Download documents and diagrams of