Appeal Decision 69 - Certificate of Lawful Development.

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

23 December 2009 – 2 Marlen Cottage, Elkins Green, Chelmsford Road, Blackmore, Ingatestone, CM4 0SD  

Planning Inspectorate Reference: APP/H1515/X/09/2111120 

Inspector: Mr K L Williams BA MA MRTPI 

Brentwood Borough Council Reference: S192/BRW/30/2009 

Summary of Case (appeal dismissed): 

The property is a detached bungalow to the south side of Chelmsford Road.  Its north elevation is stepped, such that the north-facing wall towards the west side is approx 5.5m behind the north-facing wall towards the east side.  In other words, the property is equivalent to a square shape with the north-west corner cut out.  The application was for a proposed single storey “side” extension, which would have squared off this missing corner, extending the rearward north-facing wall forward to the line of the forward north-facing wall. 

The key issue was whether the proposed extension would be contrary to Class A, part A.1(d), which states that “Development is not permitted by Class A if … the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would extend beyond a wall which— (i) fronts a highway, and (ii) forms either the principal elevation or a side elevation of the original 

Dwellinghouse”. 

With regards to determining which elevation is “the principal elevation”, the Inspector stated the following: 

“The term “principal elevation” is not defined in the GPDO but is generally taken to be the elevation which fronts the highway and which usually contains the main entrance. In this case the highway, Chelmsford Road, is to the north. Although the main entrance is on the west side of the bungalow, that side elevation faces other dwellings rather than a highway. The public face of the bungalow faces the highway to the north and I consider that to be its principal elevation”. 

Then, with regards to whether the rearward north-facing wall can form part of “the principal elevation”, the Inspector stated the following: 

“The north facing wall, from which the extension would project, is recessed by about 5½ metres behind the most forward wall of the bungalow. The appellant contends that this recessed wall is not part of the principal elevation of the building but is a separate elevation. An elevation of a building is not always a flat plane. It can include elements which are recessed or which project forward. In this case I find that the principal elevation consists of both the most forward wall of the building and the recessed, north facing wall. It seems to me that this is apparent when the bungalow is viewed from the north. The extension would project forward of that part of the principal elevation which is the recessed wall”. 

Main Conclusions: 

·       The principal elevation is not necessarily the elevation that contains the main entrance.
[Relevant to: “Principal Elevation”, A.1(d), B.1(b), E.1(b), F.1, G.1(b)]. 

·       More than one wall facing the same direction can form “the principal elevation”.  If the main elevation of a property is staggered, such that there are two walls facing the same direction, then these walls can both 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/H1515/X/09/2111120&caseaddress=COO.2036.300.8.2295694 

Link to LPA website: 

http://www.brentwood.gov.uk 

Download documents and diagrams of useful

Permitted Development information