Appeal Decision 115 - Certificate of Lawful Development.

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

21 April 2010 – Beech Coppy, Bradford Lane, Nether Alderley, Macclesfield, SK10 4TR  

Planning Inspectorate Reference: APP/R0660/X/10/2120458 

Inspector: Clive Whitehouse BA(Hons) MCD MRTPI 

Cheshire East Council Reference: 09/2242M 

Summary of Case (mixed decisions): 

The property is a large two-storey detached house set within very large grounds. The application was for a proposed first floor rear extension, a proposed outbuilding to contain a swimming pool, sauna, bar area, changing room, WC, plant room, store (the “Pool House”), and a proposed outbuilding to contain a snooker room, gym, bar area, kitchenette area, changing room and WC (the “Leisure Building”). 

With regards to the proposed first floor rear extension, the property originally had a ground floor rear projection, which has previously been replaced by a ground floor rear extension (see the “Historic” plans and elevations for this application for further information). The proposed first floor rear extension would be on top of this existing ground floor rear extension. As a result of this, the proposed first floor rear extension would not extend beyond the line of the rear wall of the original ground floor rear projection by more than 3m, but would extend beyond the line of the rear wall of the original first floor of the property by more than 3m. The roof of the proposed first floor rear extension would join onto the roof of the main house, with eaves at the same level and a ridge-line at a lower level. 

With regards to the proposed first floor rear extension, the first key issue was whether the it would be contrary to Class A, part A.1(f), which states that “Development is not permitted by Class A if … the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would have more than one storey and … (i) extend beyond the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse by more than 3 metres”. 

The Inspector stated the following: 

“Class A.1(f)(i) of Part 1 of the schedule to the GPDO 2008 permits the enlargement of a dwellinghouse, where the enlarged part would have more than one storey, subject to a maximum projection beyond the rear wall of the 

original dwellinghouse of not more than 3m. 

The original rear wall of the house formerly contained one large and two smaller bay windows at ground floor level. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the outer face of the former bay windows should be the 

reference point from which the projection of the first floor extension should be measured. On that basis, the proposed first floor extension would project by between 1.3 and 2.4m beyond the original ground floor wall. The house has more recently been extended at ground floor level, so that the bay windows have disappeared, but there is documentary evidence of their existence and outline. The original first floor rear wall of the house is unaltered, and consists of a straight wall without bay windows. The Council contends that the reference point for the first floor rear extension should be the upper part of the original rear wall, and on that basis the extension would project by 4.1m. 

The Department of Communities and Local Government has issued a document giving informal views to assist in the interpretation of the 2008 GPDO. In respect of Class A.1(f), this recognises that many houses were not built with a single rear wall and that there may be more than one original rear wall. The advice is that the relevant consideration is the wall that is being extended from. The appellant argues that the advice does not distinguish between the upper and lower levels of an original wall, where they differ. 

It is proposed to extend from the upper level of the original rear wall. As a matter of fact and degree, I conclude that the original rear wall for the purposes of this determination is the existing upper level, and not the outer face of the former ground floor bay windows. The proposed first floor rear extension would extend by more than 3m beyond the original rear wall and therefore does not qualify as permitted development.” 

With regards to the proposed first floor rear extension, the second key issue was whether it would be contrary to Class A, part A.1(i), which states that “Development is not permitted by Class A if … it would consist of or include … an alteration to any part of the roof of the dwellinghouse”. 

The Inspector stated the following: 

“Class A.1(i)(iv) indicates that development is not permitted by Class A if it would include an alteration to any part of the roof of the dwellinghouse. The proposed scheme would involve a large extension to the house roof.” 

With regards to the proposed “Pool House”, the key issue was whether the proposals would be contrary to Class E, part E.1(d), which states that “Development is not permitted by Class E if … the height of the building, enclosure or container would exceed … (ii) 2.5 metres in the case of a building, enclosure or container within 2 metres of the boundary of the curtilage of the dwellinghouse”. 

The Inspector stated the following: 

“Turning to the size and height limitations within Class E1, the only part that I consider relevant is (d), which sets height limitations. The building is designed with a dual-pitched roof with a height of 4m, and with eaves at 2.5m. In most situations that would comply with GDPO height limitations. However, the site plan shows the building to be located about 1m from the side garden boundary. The smaller existing wooden outbuilding stands at about that distance from the boundary, and it was confirmed at my site inspection that the intention is to build on that line.  

Part E.1(d)(ii) states that development is not permitted if the height of the building would exceed 2.5m in the case of a building within 2m of the boundary of the curtilage of the dwellinghouse. The height limitation in that situation applies to the building as a whole, not part of the building. Since the building would be up to 4m high, it would not be permitted development in that proximity to the site boundary. I recognise that if the building were to be sited more than 2m from the curtilage boundary, it would then comply with the roof height and eaves height limitations contained in parts (d)(i) and (e).” 

Main Conclusions: 

·       Where a property has an original single storey rear projection, then for a proposed first floor rear extension the “rear wall of the original dwellinghouse” will be the original rear wall of the property at first floor level, and not the original rear wall of the property at ground floor level. As such, under Class A, part A.1(f), the proposed first floor rear extension would be limited to a maximum projection of 3m as measured from the original rear wall at first floor level, rather than as measured from the original rear wall at ground floor level.
[Relevant to: “The rear wall of the original dwellinghouse”, A.1(e), A.1(f), A.2(c)].

·       Class A does not permit an extension with a roof that would join onto the roof of the main house.
[Note: This would appear to contradict at least one other appeal decision – for further information see the entry in the “Contents” section on “A.1(i)”].
[Relevant to: A.1(i)].

·       Where parts of a proposed outbuilding are within 2m of a boundary, the 2.5m height limit applies not just to those parts within 2m of the boundary, but to all parts of the proposed outbuilding.
[Relevant to: A.1(g), E.1(d)].

Link to case on Planning Inspectorate website: 

http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/ViewCase.asp?casename=APP/R0660/X/10/2120458&caseaddress=COO.2036.300.8.3040589 

Link to LPA website: 

www.cheshireeast.gov.uk 

Download documents and diagrams of useful

Permitted Development information