Appeal Decision 97 - 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
February 2010 - Code a00097
Summary of Case (appeal
The property is a two-storey
mid-terrace house, with an original single storey rear projection.
The width of the latter structure is just under half of the width of the property. The application was for a proposed single storey rear extension, which would
have replaced the original single storey rear projection and covered the full width of the
The 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— … (iii) have a width greater than half the width of the original
The Inspector stated the
“The Council said the
flank wall of the original rear extension offshoot must be regarded as a “side wall” of the original
dwellinghouse. Since the proposed extension would extend beyond that side wall and would be greater than half
the width of the original dwellinghouse, the development would fail to comply with condition A.1(h)(iii) to the
amended Order …”
My view, however, is that
the Council should have taken due account of the intention to demolish the existing rear extension as part of
the proposed extension works. Removal of the rear extension as part of permitted development would not amount to
demolition requiring planning permission. Its removal would remove its side elevation. In that circumstance, I
see no applicability of condition A.1(h) to the amended Order to this proposal. There are no other limitations
which preclude Mr Elson’s proposed 3m deep full width single storey rear extension being development permitted
by the Order.”
conclusion should be compared with the appeal decision for
November 2009 - Code a00044, which concluded that the
determination of which elevation forms “the principal elevation of the original dwellinghouse” should be based on
the original building in its original form, rather than only considering those parts of the original
building that still currently exist. There may be a contradiction
between these two conclusions].
The phrase “a wall forming a
side elevation of the original dwellinghouse” does not apply to an original side wall that has
previously been demolished.
[Relevant to: “A side elevation of the original
dwellinghouse”, A.1(h), A.2(b), E.3].
Links to the “Appeal
Decision Notice” and other associated documents (e.g. drawings, etc):
Download documents and diagrams of