Appeal 3269784

The appeal is dismissed.

Whilst a bay window is referred to in the description of development given on the application form, no such feature makes up part of the proposed works now before me for consideration. I shall consider the appeal on this basis.

Since the determination of the application that is now the subject of this appeal, the London Plan 2021 was published in March 2021. Further, a revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published in July 2021. Due to the limited implications of these occurrences for the proposal that is under consideration, I have not considered it necessary to seek the respective views of the main parties.

The appellant would appear to be suggesting that the proposal should be considered against Class AC of Part 20 of Schedule 2 to the GPDO, as opposed to against Class AA of Part 1. Class AC relates to new dwellinghouses on terrace buildings in use as dwellinghouses. It must be noted that the application form that was submitted specifically references Class AA of Part 1 and that the Council evidently considered the application to determine if prior approval is required on this basis. Indeed, the submitted plans indicate the enlargement of a dwellinghouse by the construction of additional storeys. For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of fairness, I shall consider the appeal against the requirements of Class AA of Part 1 of the GPDO.

The main issues are: • Whether or not the proposal would be permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class AA, [name].1 of the GPDO; and • Whether or not the external appearance of the dwellinghouse would be acceptable.

Class AA of Part 1 offers a permitted development right for the enlargement of a dwellinghouse consisting of the construction of up to two additional storeys immediately above the topmost storey of the dwellinghouse, together with any engineering operations reasonably necessary for the purposes of construction.

[name].1 of Part 1 sets out various circumstances where development is not permitted by Class AA, which include, under sub-paragraph (h), where the floor to ceiling height of any additional storey, measured internally, would exceed the lower of 3 metres or the floor to ceiling height, measured internally, of any storey of the principal part of the existing dwellinghouse.

The submitted plans indicate that two additional stories of internal floor space are proposed, with the uppermost of these being intended to be accommodated (for the most part) within the newly created roof space of the property. The submitted side elevations1 are clearly annotated to indicate intended floor levels and internal floor to ceiling heights. I am satisfied that the floor to ceiling height of each additional storey would measure less than 3 metres and not exceed the respective floor to ceiling height of any existing storey of the appeal property.

Thus, as I have no reason to consider that the proposal would fail to comply with sub-paragraph (h), or with any other provision listed under [name].1, the proposal would be permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class AA, [name].1 of the GPDO.

The provisions of sub-paragraph (3) of [name].2 of Part 1 require the developer to apply for prior approval with respect to several different matters. The Council’s second reason for refusal confirms that the only prior approval matter in contention relates to point (ii), the external appearance of the dwellinghouse, including the design and architectural features of the principal elevation of the dwellinghouse.

The local area to the site is predominantly residential and is comprised of properties of a variety of differing sizes and designs. Nevertheless, the appeal property makes up part of a well-balanced terrace of two-storey houses that exhibit consistent heights, roof forms and external facing materials. It is also important to note that upper floor window openings to the principal elevations of these properties are uniformly positioned to the immediate underside of the terrace’s eaves. 1 [name] 02 and 03

The additional storeys would be topped with a pitched roof and be constructed from complementary external-facing materials with window openings sized to match existing. Even so, a wide gap would result between the top of the second-floor windows and the property’s eaves. This would promote that the intended enlargement would appear excessively bulky, and as an unsympathetically designed addition to both the appeal property and wider terrace. Indeed, the additional storeys would fail to suitably respect the existing design and external appearance of the appeal property’s principal elevation.

For the above reasons, the external appearance of the dwellinghouse would be unacceptable. The scheme conflicts with Policy DM1 of the Harrow Council Development Management Policies (July 2013), the Framework and the Harrow Council Residential Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (December 2010) in so far as these policies and guidance set out that the assessment of the design and layout of proposals will have regard to the appearance of proposed buildings.

I accept that the principle of development is established through the GPDO. I have also noted references to the scheme’s potential benefits. However, unlike where an application for planning permission has been submitted, my considerations are necessarily limited to the conditions, limitations and restrictions specified within [name].1 and AA.2 of Part 1 to Schedule 2 of the GPDO. For the avoidance of doubt, as I have identified that the external appearance of the dwellinghouse would be unacceptable, prior approval should be refused.

For the reasons given above, the appeal is dismissed.