Appeal Decision 55 - Certificate of Lawful Development.

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

2 December 2009 – 2 David Nicholls Close, Littlemore, Oxford, OX4 4PX  

Planning Inspectorate Reference: APP/G3110/X/09/2109263 

Inspector: P N Jarratt BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI 

Oxford City Council Reference: 09/00862/CPU 

Summary of Case (appeal allowed): 

The property is a detached house, within a conservation area.  The application was for a proposed outbuilding. 

The key issue was whether the proposed outbuilding would be contrary to Class E, part E.3, which states that “In the case of any land within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse which is article 1(5) land, development is not permitted by Class E if any part of the building … would be situated on land between a wall forming a side elevation of the dwellinghouse and the boundary of the curtilage of the dwellinghouse”. 

The appeal also involved comparisons with Class E, part E.1(b), which states that “Development is not permitted by Class E if … any part of the building … would be situated on land forward of a wall forming the principal elevation of the original dwellinghouse”. 

The Inspector stated the following: 

“There is a clear difference between the words “forward of a wall” in E1(b) and “between a wall” in E3. I take “forward of” to cover any building that is within the curtilage and lies in front of the wall or a line drawn outwards to the boundary of the property from either end of that wall. However, I consider that “between” should be considered in the context of its dictionary meaning which, in simple terms, is the interval or area that is bounded by two or more points or lines. I therefore consider that the proposed siting of the outbuilding does not fall within an area that is between a side elevation and the boundary.” 

Main Conclusions: 

·       The phrase “situated on land forward of a wall forming the principal elevation of the original dwellinghouse” applies not just to the area directly in front of the wall, but also to the area in front of the imaginary line of the wall when extended to either side.
[Relevant to: E.1(b)]. 

·       It is not true that the phrase “situated on land between a wall forming a side elevation of the dwellinghouse and the boundary of the curtilage of the dwellinghouse” applies to the entire area between the imaginary line of the side wall when extended to either side and the line of the side boundary.  However, this appeal decision does not state whether the area that this condition does apply to is only the area that can be covered by a straight line drawn perpendicular from the side wall to the side boundary, or whether it is also the area that can be covered by a straight line drawn at an angle from the side wall to the side boundary.
[Relevant to: E.3]. 

Link to case on Planning Inspectorate website: 

http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/ViewCase.asp?casename=APP/G3110/X/09/2109263&caseaddress=COO.2036.300.8.2135066 

Link to LPA website: 

http://www.oxford.gov.uk/ 

Download documents and diagrams of useful

Permitted Development information