Appeal Decision 71 - Certificate of Lawful Development.

January 2010 - Code a00071

Summary of Case (appeal dismissed): 

The property is a detached bungalow to the north-east side of the road. Its south-west elevation, which is accepted in the appeal as the principal elevation, is staggered, and both this elevation and the proposed extension are described by the Inspector as follows: 

“The appellant argues that the proposed extension would not project beyond the foremost part of the wall that faces [the road]. This elevation is staggered. The wall of the room identified on the plan as “bedroom 1”, with its bay window, stands forward from the wall of the room identified as “bedroom 2” and the existing entrance to the bungalow. The proposal would square off this recessed area. The new front wall of the extension, and the new entrance to the bungalow would project no closer to [the road] than the existing front wall of “bedroom 1”.”

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”. 

The Inspector stated the following: 

“There is no definition of “principal elevation” in the GPDO. This is because of the inherent difficulty in arriving at a definition that would provide absolute certainty about what would constitute the “principal elevation” in all circumstances. 

In most cases the “principal elevation” is clear. Usually it is the part of the house that fronts the highway and which contains the main entrance. 

Where the “principal elevation” is less clear, the local planning authority has to assess which elevation constitutes it. Where there are two elevations that front the highway both could be covered by any restriction on the “principal elevation”. 

Whether one part of the elevation that fronts onto the highway is set back from another part is immaterial. There can be more than one plane to the “principal elevation”. 

The GPDO makes no reference to the forward-most part of a wall being the “principal elevation”, as the appellant asserts, and there is no basis for interpreting it in that way.” 

Main Conclusions: 

·       More than 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)].

·       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:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00071-Appeal-Decision-Notice.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

·       OS Map:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00071-OS-Map.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

·       Elevations:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00071-Elevations.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

Download documents and diagrams of useful

Permitted Development information