Doesn’t the use of the word ‘original’ in planning legislation ever cause some problems? Here’s another instance (DCS Number 400-027-219).
This case concerns an appeal against the refusal of prior approval for a 6m deep rear extension to a mid-terrace house in north London.
The inspector recorded that development is not permitted by Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO if the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse and would have a width greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse. The appellant advised that a small WC projection at the rear of the dwelling had recently been demolished and that, consequently, there was no side wall for the proposed extension to extend beyond. Nevertheless, noted the inspector, there was no substantive evidence to suggest that the small WC projection was not part of the original building. Consequently, the proposed extension would extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwelling. Therefore, the development was not permitted under the GPDO.
What if the appellant hadn’t said anything?
Section 4.3421 of DCP Online provides information on development within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse.