A householder appealing the refusal of a certificate of lawfulness for a rear extension to his terrace house in southwest London has offered a novel interpretation of the GPDO (DCS Number 400-018-014).
The appellant argued that the definition of rear and side walls is generally taken to apply to the main substance of a building, and that A.1(j)(iii) of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the GPDO is intended to apply to extensions beyond the original width of the building, such as to the side of an end-of-terrace, semi-detached, or detached property, and not to extensions within the width of a mid-terrace property. The inspector ruled that, “despite these interesting observations”, for the very specific planning purposes of the GPDO, side and rear elevations of the original dwellinghouse are interpreted as any such elevations that form part of that building, irrespective of whether part of the main substance, or whether the building is part of a terrace, an end-of-terrace, semi-detached, or detached.
Good try, but no.
Extensive coverage of the meaning of Part 1 of the GPDO – Development within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse – can be found at section 4.3421 of DCP Online.