Appeal 3272475

The appeal is dismissed.

The above description of development is taken from the application form. The form includes a lengthy written description of the proposal, but the main point to note from this is that the maximum height of the dwelling would increase from 5.25 m to 7.75 m.

[name].3(12) of Part 1, Class AA of the Order (‘Class AA’) requires the local planning authority to take into account any representations made to them as a result of consultation, and to have regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the ‘Framework’), so far as relevant to the subject matter of the prior approval, as if the application were a planning application. My determination of this appeal has been made on the same basis.

Amongst other things, Class AA permits the enlargement of a one storey dwelling consisting of the construction of one additional storey, immediately above the topmost storey of the dwellinghouse, together with any engineering operations reasonably necessary for the purpose of that construction.

[name].2(3)(a) of Class AA requires prior approval to be sought for the matters listed in that paragraph. Having assessed the application, the Council is content that the development is acceptable in all respects, except in relation to the external appearance of the dwellinghouse. I shall focus on this as the main matter in dispute.

The appeal property is a modest detached bungalow with a pitched roof. The proposal would project the building upwards by an additional storey to create a two-storey house. Viewed in isolation of surrounding development, the design would be acceptable. This is common ground between the parties.

However, the appeal site lies within an area characterised by bungalows. These vary in design, but there is a high degree of consistency in the vertical scale of the buildings. The dwellings within [address] are, without exception, low rise and this leads to a strong harmony of built form. A small minority of bungalows have had loft conversions, but these are generally confined to the existing building envelope and where dormer windows have been needed, these are subservient features which have not increased the ridge height.

The construction of an additional storey on the appeal property would create a dwelling which is significantly taller than others in [address]. The resultant building, with its two-storey eaves, would stand out as an incongruous and discordant feature in the street scene. The proposed development would fundamentally alter the architectural composition of the property relative to the street context and accordingly I find the external appearance of the dwelling to be unacceptable. The proposal would conflict with Paragraph 130 c) of the Framework which seeks to ensure that developments are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment.

The appellant argues that the wording of [name].2(3)(a)(ii) means that the only relevant consideration is the ‘design and architectural features’ of the front elevation, and does not empower the decision-maker to assess the development in its wider context. However, the wording of the regulations refers to the external appearance of the dwellinghouse, including the design and architectural features of the principal elevation. This indicates that matters for consideration are not confined to the appearance of the principal elevation, but can include other factors of relevance. In this case, it is neither sensible nor appropriate to consider the external appearance of the building in isolation; the street context is an aspect of the building’s external appearance.

My attention has been drawn to an appeal decision1 in which the Inspector commented that ‘the GPDO wording suggests a relatively narrow assessment as to the design and appearance of the dwellinghouse itself’. I have not been provided with the decision letter and therefore do not know the background to that appeal. Nevertheless, each case must be determined on its own merits and, where prior approval requires the external appearance of a dwelling to be assessed, it will be a matter of planning judgement as to whether consideration is given to the building’s relationship with nearby properties. In the current appeal, I have determined that the position of the property within a street of bungalows is of relevance, and for the reasons I have outlined I conclude that the external appearance of the dwellinghouse would be unacceptable. This justifies a refusal of prior approval.

The appellant makes reference to a property on [address] whereby a former bungalow has had its ridge height increased to create a second floor. I do not 1 APP/J1535/D/21/3266264 know the history of this development, but noted during my visit that [address] has a different character to [address]. It is less suburban in appearance and also includes an element of two-storey housing. As such, this example can be distinguished from the appeal scheme.

It is argued that the existing dwelling is cramped and unsuitable for modern family living. [name] accept that the property may not meet the appellant’s needs, this is not a factor which can be considered in the context of an application for prior approval. The matters for consideration are restricted to those set out in [name].2(3)(a) of Class AA.

For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.