Appeal Decision 89 - Certificate of Lawful Development.
This appeal decision summary and
assessment has been produced by Planning Jungle Limited. For more information, please go to www.planningjungle.com/?p=20
January 2010 -
Summary of Case (appeal
Numbers 31 and 33 are a pair
of semi-detached house that were converted from a single building to the west of the road (which runs
north-south). The building was converted with a north-south divide, with number 33 (the application site) on the
west side, meaning that the application site has a north, west, and south elevation, but no east elevation (the
latter is the party wall with number 31). The application was for a two-storey extension to the west
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— (i) exceed 4 metres in height, (ii) have more than one
storey, or (iii) have a width greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse”.
The appellant argued (as
shown on the submitted drawing) that the north and south elevations are side elevations, and the west elevation
is a rear elevation.
The Inspector examined the
architectural features of the property, including the position of its front door, and his comments included the
“The northern and southern
elevations are described as ‘side elevations’, and that to the west as the ‘rear elevation’ in the submitted
plans. That does not however make them so for present purposes. To my mind indeed it illustrates the weakness of
the Appellant’s case, as it means the dwelling, as opposed to the building, would have no front, or ‘principal’,
elevation. Whatever the original arrangements as a single dwelling, [the application site] can only now be
reasonably described as being set at right angles to the road, with the southern elevation being the front of
the house, the northern being the rear elevation and the western the side elevation. The fact that the main area
of garden is to the side and front of the house rather than behind it merely reflects the unusual site layout.
I have no hesitation in
finding the southern elevation to be the front of the house, both functionally and architecturally. It follows
that the western elevation is a ‘side elevation’ for present purposes and therefore that the proposal is caught
by the terms of paragraph A.1(h), certainly in the first two respects, if not all three”.
No conclusions (because specific
to this particular property)
Links to the “Appeal Decision
Notice” and other associated documents (e.g. drawings, etc):
· Appeal Decision
Download documents and diagrams of