The appellant claimed that the structure was permitted under class E, part 1, schedule 2 of the General Permitted Development Order 1995. The council pointed out that it would lie closer to a highway than the original dwellinghouse and this failed to comply with paragraph E.1(b) of class E. The inspector agreed that this caveat was intended to prevent development extending beyond the original building line without proper assessment of the planning merits.
Because the dwelling was fronted by two roads on different boundaries, he decided that the correct approach was to assess the siting of the curtilage building and its proximity to the nearest highway. He observed that the building would be 4.5m from the road, whereas the bungalow was set back by 6m. On that basis, he concluded that it was not permitted development.
DCS Number 100-051-117
Inspector John Parnell; Written representations.