Certificate of Lawful Development Appeal Decisions by category of development.

The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995
Part 1 (as amended on 1 October 2008) 

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

Class A development

Class A:  

·       See entires under separate heading “Interaction between Class A and Class E”.  

A.1(a): 

·       Xxx  

A.1(b): 

·       See entries under separate heading “Highest Part of the … Roof”.  

A.1(c): 

·       See entries relating to the phrase “eaves” under separate heading “A.1(g)”.  

·       See entries relating to the phrase “eaves” under separate heading “E.1(1)”.  

·       Where an extension has a flat roof, the edge of this flat roof (or the top of the parapet walls) would not constitute “eaves”.
[Source: 12 January 2010 – Bankside Cottage, Shoreham Road]. 

·       Where the main eaves of a house are at more than one level, the reference to the “height of the eaves of the existing dwellinghouse” refers to the predominant eaves level.
[Source: 9 March 2010 – 142 The Harebreaks]. 

A.1(d): 

·       See entries under separate heading “Principal Elevation”.  

·       See entries under separate heading “Basements”.  

·       See entries under separate heading “A Side Elevation of the original dwellinghouse ”.  

·       Where an elevation of a property is at an angle to a highway, it is still possible for that elevation to front the highway.  Furthermore, where a property is angled such that two elevations are each at an approx 45 degree angle to the highway, it is possible for both of these elevations to front the highway.
[Source: 22 October 2009 – The Orchard, Frome Park Road]. 

A.1(e): 

·       See entries under separate heading “Basements”.  

·       See entries under separate heading “The rear wall of the original dwellinghouse”.  

·       See entries under separate heading “Interaction between A.1(e)/(f) and A.1(h)”.  

·       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.
[Source: 12 August 2009 – 33 Burnham Green Road].
[Source: 13 January 2010 – Oldlands Dene, Outdowns]. 

·       Where a property has an original rear projection, an extension to the rear of this is limited to the width of the original rear projection.
[Source: 3 September 2009 – 68 Duke Road]. 

·       Where the main rear wall of an extension would comply with the 3m/4m rear projection limit of Class A, part A.1(e), but the eaves and guttering of the extension would project slightly past this line, then this would still be permitted development.
[Source: 3 September 2009 – 36 Leyburn Avenue].
[Source: 12 February 2010 – 153 Costons Lane]. 

·       Where an extension within an infill area would leave a courtyard, and then project past the end of the original rear projection and wrap around the latter, it would not be permitted development.
[Note: In my opinion, the above conclusion is questionable, because the Inspector has stated that the proposed extension would not be permitted development, but (unlike the LPA involved) has not identified any limitation or condition of Class A to which the extension would be contrary].
[Source: 11 May 2009 – 21 Holmewood Road]. 

A.1(f): 

·       See entries under separate heading “Basements”.  

·       See entries under separate heading “The rear wall of the original dwellinghouse”.  

·       See entries under separate heading “Interaction between A.1(e)/(f) and A.1(h)”.  

·       Where it is proposed to erect a two-storey rear extension, Class A, part A.1(f) would restrict both storeys to a depth of 3m.  It therefore is not possible on a detached property to erect (as a single operation) a two-storey rear extension that has a ground floor with depth 4m and a first floor with depth 3m.
[Note: This contradicts the entry below].
[Source: 8 December 2009 – Greenacres, Sevenoaks Road]. 

·       Where it is proposed to erect a two-storey rear extension, Class A, part A.1(f) would restrict only the first floor to a depth of 3m.  It therefore is possible on a detached property to erect (as a single operation) a two-storey rear extension that has a ground floor with depth 4m and a first floor with depth 3m.
[Note: This contradicts the entry above].
[Source: 23 March 2010 – 45 Highfield Road].

 

A.1(g): 

·       See entries relating to the phrase “within 2m of the boundary” under separate heading “E.1(d)”.  

·       See entries relating to the phrase “eaves” under separate heading “A.1(c)”.  

·       See entries relating to the phrase “eaves” under separate heading “E.1(e)”.  

·       Where parts of a proposed extension are within 2m of a boundary, the 3m eaves height limit applies not just to those parts within 2m of the boundary, but to all parts of the proposed extension.
[Note: This contradicts the entry below].
[Source: 9 December 2009 – 8 Brookland Drive].
[Source: 13 April 2010 – 15 Aldenham Avenue].

 

·       Where parts of a proposed extension are within 2m of a boundary, the 3m eaves height limit applies only to those parts within 2m of the boundary.
[Note: This contradicts the entry above].
[Source: 9 March 2010 – 142 The Harebreaks]. 

·       For a single storey rear extension with a mono-pitch roof sloping up towards the main house, the “eaves” of the extension the lower end of the slope, and can not be taken to be the higher end of the slope.
[Source: 4 August 2009 – 226 Parsonage Lane]. 

·       For a single storey rear extension with a mono-pitch roof sloping up towards the main house, the “eaves” of the extension the lower end of the slope, and can not be taken to be the side edges of the slope.
[Source: 10 December 2009 – 108 Eton Road]. 

A.1(h): 

·       See entries under separate heading “Basements”.  

·       See entries under separate heading “A side elevation of the original dwellinghouse”.  

·       See entries under separate heading “Interaction between A.1(e)/(f) and A.1(h)”.  

·       Under Class A, part A.1(h), where part of a proposed extension would extend beyond an original side wall, the restriction against having “a width greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse” applies only to that part of the extension that extends beyond the original side wall.  In other words, the overall width of the proposed extension can be greater than then half the width of the main house, so long as the part of the extension that extends beyond the original side wall does not do so by more than half the width of the house.
[Note: This contradicts the entry two below]
[Source: 29 October 2009 – 2 Croydon Lane].
[Source: 9 December 2009 – 8 Brookland Drive].
[Source: 27 January 2010 – 77 Lonesome Lane]. 

·       Under Class A, part A.1(h), where part of a proposed extension would extend beyond an original side wall, the restriction against having “more than one storey” applies only to that part of the extension that extends beyond the original side wall.  In other words, the part of the proposed extension that does not extend beyond the original side wall can have more than one storey, so long as the part of the extension that extends beyond the original side wall does not have more than one storey.
[Note: This contradicts the entry below].
[Source: 27 January 2010 – 77 Lonesome Lane]. 

·       Under Class A, part A.1(h), where part of a proposed extension would extend beyond an original side wall, the restriction against having “a width greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse” applies to the entire extension (i.e. not just to that part of the extension that extends beyond the original side wall).  In other words, the overall width of the proposed extension can not be greater than then half the width of the main house, even if the part of the extension that extends beyond the original side wall does not do so by more than half the width of the house.
[Note: This contradicts the entry two above and the entry above].
[Source: 16 March 2010 – 20 Leeds Road]. 

·       Where it is proposed to erect two separate side extensions, one on each side of a detached house, then each of these side extensions could have a width up to half the width of the original house (i.e. this limit would not apply to the combined width of the two side extensions).
[Source: 3 March 2010 – Mount Lodge, Oak Road] 

A.1(i): 

·       See entries relating to soil and vent pipes under separate heading “Class G”.  

·       A “Juliette balcony” is not a “balcony” for the purposes of the GPDO, and therefore is permitted development.
[Source: 24 November 2009 – Site at Eagles, Park Horsley].
[Source: 26 November 2009 – 25 Minster Road]. 

·       Class A does permit an extension with a roof that would join onto the roof of the main house.
[Note: This contradicts the entry below].
[Source: 24 November 2009 – Site at Eagles, Park Horsley].
[Source: 25 January 2010 – 44 Cottingham Grove].
[Source: 9 March 2010 – 142 The Harebreaks].
[Source: 23 March 2010 – 45 Highfield Road]. 

·       Class A does not permit an extension with a roof that would join onto the roof of the main house.
[Note: This contradicts the entry above].
[Source: 18 January 2010 – The Chalet, 8 Pilgrims Way].
[Source: 21 April 2010 – Beech Coppy, Bradford Lane]. 

·       Class A does not permit an extension with a roof that would join onto the roof of the main house in the case where the inside of the roof of the extension would form part of a loft conversion.
[Source: 13 April 2010 – 15 Aldenham Avenue]. 

·       Class A does not permit an extension that would alter the roof of an original single storey projection (in the case where the roof of the latter is at a lower level and separate from the main roof of the house).
[Source: 2 February 2010 – 42 South Street]. 

A.2(a): 

·       Xxx  

A.2(b): 

·       See entries under separate heading “Basements”.  

·       See entries under separate heading “A side elevation of the original dwellinghouse”.  

A.2(c): 

·       See entries under separate heading “Basements”.  

·       See entries under separate heading “The rear wall of the original dwellinghouse”.  

A.3(a): 

·       See entries under separate heading “Conditions”.  

·       See entries relating to the phrase “of a similar appearance” under separate heading “B.2(a)”.  

·       The use of timber and aluminium panels on the external walls of a single storey extension to a traditional house would be “of a similar appearance” to the traditional materials (e.g. stock bricks) of the house.
[Note: In my opinion, the above conclusion is questionable.  If the use of timber and aluminium panels (on a wall visible from normal vantage points) is considered to be “of a similar appearance” to traditional materials (e.g. stock bricks), then how could there be any type of material that would not meet this condition … ?].
[Source: 4 December 2009 – 43 Fawnbrake Avenue]. 

A.3(b): 

·       See entries under separate heading “Conditions”.  

·       See entries under separate heading “A side elevation of the original dwellinghouse”.  

A.3(c): 

·       See entries under separate heading “Conditions”.  

Class B: 

·       The erection of a first floor rear extension on top of an existing single storey rear extension would not fall under the scope of Class B.
[Note: This contradicts the entry below].
[Source: 5 June 2009 – 66 Ridley Road]. 

·       The erection of a first floor rear extension on top of an original single storey rear projection would fall under the scope of Class B.
[Note: This contradicts the entry above].
[Source: 8 February 2010 – 111 Clifton Road]. 

Download documents and diagrams of useful

Permitted Development information