Appeal Decision 78 - 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 – Oldlands Dene, Outdowns, Effingham, Leatherhead, KT24 5QR  

Planning Inspectorate Reference: APP/Y3615/X/09/2111591 

Inspector: Sara Morgan LLB (Hons) MA Solicitor 

Guildford Borough Council Reference: 09/P/00889 

Summary of Case (appeal allowed): 

The property is a detached bungalow, with its front elevation facing south-west.  It has a very large existing side extension which first projects south-east from the side wall of the original bungalow, then turns north-east towards the rear garden, and then turns south-east again.  For a drawing of this property on which the original building is clearly marked please refer to Appendix A of the Council’s Appeal Statement. 

The application was for a single storey rear extension, which would not only have covered the full width of the north-east rear wall of the original bungalow, but would have exceeded the width of the latter by projecting to the south-east side of the rear elevation.  This projecting part of the proposed extension would have been directly attached to both a rear wall and a side wall of the existing extension. 

The first key issue was whether the proposed extension would be contrary to Class A, part A.1(h), which states that “Development is not permitted by Class A if … the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse, and would— … (ii) have a width greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse” 

The second key issue was whether Class A, part A.1(e), which states that “development is not permitted by Class A if … the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would … extend beyond the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse by more than … 3 metres”, restricts the width of the extension to the width of the original rear wall.

 

In their Appeal Statement, the Council made several points, including that the proposed extension would not “extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse, as required by point (h) of the GPDO”, and that “part of the extension would extend beyond a rear wall that is not part of the original dwellinghouse”. 

The Inspector stated the following: 

“Limitation A.1(e) applies where the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would have a single storey and (i) extend beyond the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse by more than 4 metres in the case of a detached dwellinghouse, or (ii) exceed 4 metres in height. As the proposed extension would extend beyond the rear wall by 3.8 metres and would not exceed 4 metres in height it would not fall within limitation A.1(e). 

Limitation A.1(h) applies where the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse, and would (i) exceed 4 metres in height, or (ii) have more than one storey, or (iii) have a width greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse. This extension does not extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse. Limitation (h) does not, therefore, apply. 

The extension would be attached to a side elevation of the extended dwellinghouse, but limitation A.1(h) is clearly worded and is not applicable where the development extends only beyond a non-original sidewall. There is no requirement in A.1(h) that a side extension must be built off an original side wall in order to be permitted development. Similarly, limitation A.1(e) only applies to extensions which extend beyond the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse. The structure of Class A is that enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse is not permitted if it is excluded by any of the limitations in Class A.1. This extension is not explicitly excluded by any of the limitations in Class A.1. It would therefore be permitted development”. 

Main Conclusions: 

·       Where the original rear elevation of a property is flat, Class A, part A.1(e) does not in itself restrict the width of the extension to the width of the original rear wall.
[Relevant to: A.1(e), A.1(f)]. 

Link to case on Planning Inspectorate website: 

http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/ViewCase.asp?casename=APP/Y3615/X/09/2111591&caseaddress=COO.2036.300.8.2333774 

Link to LPA website: 

www.guildford.gov.uk 

Download documents and diagrams of useful

Permitted Development information