Appeal Decision 76 - Certificate of Lawful Development.

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

13 January 2010 – 77 Platts Lane, Hampstead, London, NW3 7NL  

Planning Inspectorate Reference: APP/N5090/X/09/2108111 

Inspector: Ian Currie BA MPhil MRICS MRTPI 

London Borough of Barnet Reference: F/01371/09 

Summary of Case (appeal allowed): 

The property is a two-storey mid-terrace house, with an original two-storey rear projection.  The application was for a proposed dormer on the side roof slope of the original two-storey rear projection, and would have involved the raising of the party wall of the latter structure, which is shared with the adjoining number 79 Platts Lane. 

The key issue was whether the raising of the party wall would constitute “Development within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse”, and therefore whether the proposals would fall under the scope of Part 1 of the GPDO. 

The Council argued that to build up the party wall with 79 Platts Lane, by raising the combined thickness of the joint wall to the two properties, would constitute development not falling within the curtilage of 77 Platts Lane, would therefore fail to comply with the heading of Part 1, and would therefore cause the proposals in their entirety to require planning permission. 

The Inspector made reference to another appeal decision (APP/Q5300/X/01/106324, dated 2001), and stated the following: 

“The Inspector quoted extensively from several authorities (Methuen-Campbell v Walters [1979] 1 QB 525, Dyer v Dorset CC [1988] 3 WLR 213, Attorney-Gen ex rel Suttcliffe & others v Calderdale MBC [1983] JPL and McAlpine v Secretary of State for the Environment [1995] JPL B43). In doing so, he concluded that, on the strength of the final case cited in particular, a curtilage comprised three defining characteristics. Firstly, it occupied a small area around a building, secondly it was intimately associated with that building and thirdly it had to be regarded as part of one enclosure with the house. Where party walls are concerned, the Inspector reached the conclusion that two adjoining curtilages can overlap each other, where a party wall shared by two contiguous properties could result in the partial collapse of both if the wall were removed. He could see no reason why, with a party wall such an integral part of two dwellinghouses, their two curtilages could not overlap, because such small areas were involved, and neither can I”. 

… 

“I find that raising of the party wall between 77 and 79 Platts Lane as a joint building exercise would be part of the development permitted by Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 as amended, within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse at 77 Platts Lane”. 

Main Conclusions: 

·       The raising of a party wall (e.g. where an extension involves the building up across the full width of a joint wall between two properties) does fall within the phrase “Development within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse”, and therefore is permitted* by the Classes within Part 1.
(*subject to compliance with the particular Class including all limitations and conditions, of course)
[Relevant to: “Development within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse”]. 

Link to case on Planning Inspectorate website: 

http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/ViewCase.asp?casename=APP/N5090/X/09/2108111&caseaddress=COO.2036.300.8.2045753 

Link to LPA website: 

www.barnet.gov.uk 

Download documents and diagrams of useful

Permitted Development information