Appeal Decision 57 - Certificate of Lawful Development.

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

8 December 2009 – 17 Carden Road, Nunhead, London, SE15 3UB  

Planning Inspectorate Reference: APP/A5840/X/09/2111257 

Inspector: Katie Peerless Dip Arch RIBA 

London Borough of Southwark Reference: 09-AP-0675 

Summary of Case (appeal dismissed): 

The property is a two-storey semi-detached house, within a conservation area.  The property has an original two-storey rear projection.  The application was for a proposed extension within the side infill area, which would have projected 3m beyond the end of the original two-storey rear projection, wrapping around the rear of the latter to replace the existing single storey rear extension. 

The key issue was whether the proposed extension would be contrary to Class A, part A.2(b), which states that “In the case of a dwellinghouse on article 1(5) land, 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”. 

The appellant argued that, in this situation, the side elevation of the main widest part of the house closest to the road is that to which Class A, part A.2(b) refers, and that the restrictions of this condition do not apply to an extension that would extend beyond the side wall of an original rear projection. 

The Inspector disagreed with the above, and stated that she takes the specific wording of the GPDO to refer to any wall that forms a side elevation, as long as it is part of the original building. She stated that a property can have more than one side wall [i.e. more than one wall that constitutes “a side elevation” for the purposes of the GPDO], and that the terms of the GPDO apply to all of these walls. 

[Note: It appears to me that the proposed extension would also have been contrary to Class A, part A.1(e), on the basis that it would have extended beyond the original rear wall within the infill area (which a number of other appeal decisions have confirmed constitutes “the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse”) by more than 3m.  However, as is not uncommon with appeal decisions, once the Inspector had concluded that the proposed extension would have been contrary to at least one limitation (and therefore not permitted development), she did not then proceed to consider whether or not it would also have been contrary to any other limitations]. 

Main Conclusions: 

·       The side wall of an original rear projection is “a side elevation”, and therefore under Class A, part A.2 (b) an extension to the side of an original rear projection within a conservation area is not permitted development.
[Relevant to: A.1(d), A.1(h), A.2(b), A.3(b), B.2(c), C.2, E.3, G.1(b)]. 

·       A property can have more than one wall that constitutes “a side elevation” for the purposes of the GPDO.
[Relevant to: A.1(d), A.1(h), A.2(b), A.3(b), B.2(c), C.2, E.3, G.1(b)]. 

Link to case on Planning Inspectorate website: 

http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/ViewCase.asp?casename=APP/A5840/X/09/2111257&caseaddress=COO.2036.300.8.2296453 

Link to LPA website: 

http://www.southwark.gov.uk 

Download documents and diagrams of useful

Permitted Development information