Appeal Decision 112 - Certificate of Lawful Development.

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

29 March 2010 – 31 Old Palace Road, Guildford, GU2 7TU  

Planning Inspectorate Reference: APP/Y3615/X/09/2116291 

Inspector: D Roger Dyer BA, DipArch, RIBA, FCIArb, Barrister 

Guildford Borough Council Reference: 09/P/00871 

Summary of Case (appeal allowed): 

The property is a two-storey semi-detached house, with a two-storey side extension (covering the full length of the side elevation of the main house). The property has two existing single storey rear extensions – one across the full width of the rear elevation of the two-storey side extension, and the other across the majority of the width of the rear elevation of the main house. As such, between these two existing extensions, the minority of the width of the rear elevation of the main house has not been extended. The proposals would erect a single storey rear extension within this area. 

The key issue was whether the 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 Council’s reason for refusal was as follows: 

“The proposed single storey rear extension, does not have planning permission by reason of Schedule 2 Part 1 Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No. 2) (England) Order 2008, by virtue of the single storey extension extending from extensions to the side and not from the original dwellinghouse.” 

The Council’s delegated report included the following additional information: 

“By virtue of the single storey rear extension extending from extensions to the side and not from the original dwellinghouse, the proposed development would contravene point (h) of Class A.” 

The Inspector stated the following: 

“The appellants’ house is a semi-detached property. It has been enlarged at the rear with two separate lean-to extensions, probably at different times. Between the two extensions there is a gap at the back of which the original external wall of the house is visible. The proposed new extension has been designed to fill that gap with a similar profile. On behalf of the appellants it is said that the house has been extended at least once in the past but they say that the proposed new extension covers part of the house that has not previously been extended. 

While neither the plan showing the existing ground floor (drawing no. 508-3), nor the plan depicting the proposed extension (508-1), show the full extent of the ground floor, the line of the original external wall is confirmed by the line of internal piers. It is said on behalf of the appellants that the extension does not pose any harm in planning terms. However an application for a Certificate of Lawful Development should be based solely on the lawful use and not upon the merits of the subject matter. 

Inspection of the property reveals that the proposed new extension would spring from the original dwellinghouse. There is no suggestion that the extent of development permitted by the GPDO has been, or would be, exceeded and the proposal conforms with the provisions of the GPDO.” 

[Note: In my opinion, it is not clear how the Council concluded that the proposals would be contrary to Class A, part A.1(h).] 

Main Conclusions: 

·       No conclusions (because specific to this particular property) 

Link to case on Planning Inspectorate website: 

http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/ViewCase.asp?casename=APP/Y3615/X/09/2116291&caseaddress=COO.2036.300.8.2694778 

Link to LPA website: 

www.guildford.gov.uk 

Download documents and diagrams of useful

Permitted Development information