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 69 - 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 a00069


Summary of Case (appeal dismissed): 


The property is a detached bungalow to the south side of the 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 



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 … 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: 


·       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)].

·       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)].


·       Where the front elevation of a property is staggered, then more than one wall facing the same direction can form “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)].


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


·       Appeal Decision Notice: 

·       OS Map: 

·       Drawings: 






Download documents and diagrams of useful

Permitted Development information

permitted development documents download

 Appeal Decisions