Appeal Decision 65 - Certificate of Lawful Development.

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

14 December 2009 – 4 Riverside, Egham, TW20 0AA  

Planning Inspectorate Reference: APP/Q3630/X/09/2106253 

Inspector: Andrew D Kirby RD* MA MSc FRTPI 

Runnymede Borough Council Reference: 09/0347 

Summary of Case (appeal allowed): 

The property is a detached house, to the north of which is the river Thames, and to the south of which is a vehicular access followed by Windsor Road.  The application was for a proposed outbuilding, which would have been located to the west of the property, such that the southern part of the outbuilding would have been slightly further south than the south elevation of the property. 

The key issue was whether the proposed outbuilding would be contrary to Class E, part E.1(b), which states that “Development is not permitted by Class E if … any part of the building, enclosure, pool or container would be situated on land forward of a wall forming the principal elevation of the original dwellinghouse”. 

The Council argued that both the north elevation and the south elevation are a “principal elevation”.  The Inspector disagreed, and stated the following: 

“I share the appellant’s view that the use of “the” rather than “a” implies that there will only be one in any situation and the normal dictionary meaning of “principal” – first in importance – means that the Order envisages there being only one elevation that forms the principal elevation for the purposes of the Order”. 

In determining which elevation was “the principal elevation”, the Inspector stated that he lays “some importance on how people – public and private, on foot and in vehicles – approach the dwelling”, and that he attaches “considerable weight to the design of the house and how it sits within its curtilage and is displayed to public views”.  He concluded that in this particular case the north elevation is the principal one, and therefore allowed the appeal. 

Main Conclusions: 

·       Only one elevation can constitute “the principal elevation”.
[Note: This would appear to contradict at least one other appeal decision – for further information see the entry in the “Contents” section on “Principal Elevation”].
[Relevant to: “Principal Elevation”, A.1(d), B.1(b), E.1(b), F.1, G.1(b)]. 

Link to case on Planning Inspectorate website: 

http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/ViewCase.asp?casename=APP/Q3630/X/09/2106253&caseaddress=COO.2036.300.8.1898139 

Link to LPA website: 

http://www.runnymede.gov.uk 

Download documents and diagrams of useful

Permitted Development information