Appeal 3274012

Appeal A is dismissed.

Appeal B is dismissed.

[name] and B relate to two separate proposals for prior approval at the same property and both applications to which these appeals relate to were refused for the same reason. Therefore, I have dealt with both appeals together.

In the case of both the appeals before me, the Council is of the opinion that the submitted schemes do not comply with the eligibility requirement of [name].1 (i) of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Appeal Decisions APP/C1950/D/21/3274012 and APP/C1950/D/21/3274014 Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended) (‘GPDO’). This states that development is not permitted by Class AA if it does not meet any of the criteria under Class AA.1 of the GPDO, including: ‘(i) any additional storey is constructed other than on the principal part of the dwellinghouse;’

Accordingly, the main issue in respect of both appeals is whether the proposals would be permitted development under Class AA of the GPDO having regard to [name].1 (i) of Class AA of the GPDO

The appeal property comprises an extended chalet bungalow with some accommodation incorporated at roof level.

Whilst the reasons for the eligibility requirements may not be clear from the legislation, my role as the decision maker is to assess whether a specific proposal for prior approval meets these requirements.

Paragraph AA4.(1) of the GPDO states that for the purposes of Class AA "principal part", in relation to a dwellinghouse, means the main part of the dwellinghouse excluding any front, side or rear extension of a lower height, whether this forms part of the original dwellinghouse or is a subsequent addition.

Irrespective of the appellants’ broader interpretation of Paragraph AA4.(1), in my view, this Paragraph is clear and precise with limited scope for subjectivity.

The main parties agree that the appeal property benefits from a front extension which dates back to a planning permission from 1966. This extension is part hipped and part flat roofed. Despite the appellants’ assertion that this front extension is physically and visually indivisible from the original dwelling, for the purposes of Paragraph AA4.(1) this is a subsequent addition with a lower height relative to the original dwellinghouse.

The proposed scheme under Appeal A incorporates an additional storey with some roof level accommodation above the entire building including the front extension but excludes the existing flat roofed side and rear elements. The proposal under Appeal B is similar to that under Appeal A but does not extend over the flat roofed section of the front extension.

Therefore, in both schemes (Appeal A and Appeal B) the proposed additional storey would to a lesser or greater degree extend over the existing front extension which is of a lower height than the original dwelling. As such, in both schemes the proposed additional storey would be constructed other than on the principal part of the dwellinghouse. Consequently, the proposals under both Appeal A and Appeal B do not meet the eligibility requirement of [name].1.(i) of the GPDO.

Accordingly, the proposals for both Appeal A and Appeal B are not permitted development under Class AA of the GPDO. I, therefore, conclude that Appeal A and Appeal B should be dismissed.