ask us a question on permitted development           Permitted Development England
How to build a home extension  without Planning Permission using your PD rights - Oct. 1st 2008



Home Page About Us FAQ Advertise on this site Disclaimer Privacy Contact Us Site Map

Appeal Decision 65 - Certificate of Lawful Development.

This appeal decision summary and assessment has been produced by Planning Jungle Limited.  For more information, please go to

December 2009 - Code a00065  


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 the 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 “Reference Section” on “Principal Elevation”].
[Relevant to: “Principal Elevation”, A.1(d), B.1(b), E.1(b), F.1, G.1(b)]. 


·       This appeal decision provides an example of the types of factors that should be taken into consideration when determining which elevation is “the principal elevation”.
[Relevant to: “Principal Elevation”, A.1(d), B.1(b), E.1(b), F.1, G.1(b)].


Links to the “Appeal Decision Notice” and other associated documents (e.g. drawings, etc): 


·       Appeal Decision Notice: 

·       Drawings: 

·       Agent’s Statement: 






Download documents and diagrams of useful

Permitted Development information

permitted development documents download


 Appeal Decisions