Appeal 3277104

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is whether the proposed development would comply with the conditions, limitations or restrictions applicable to development permitted, having regard to Class A of Schedule 2, Part 1 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the GPDO).

[site address] is a semi-detached property occupied as a house in multiple occupation on a corner plot at the junction of The Cloisters and [address]. The original attached garage has been converted to an additional bedroom and the property has previously been extended at single storey to the rear.

Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO states that the enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse is permitted development. [name].1. sets out the relevant exceptions and limitations of the permitted development rights.

[name].1. (j) states that development is not permitted by Class A if the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse, and would exceed 4 metres in height, have more than a single storey, or have a width greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse. [name].1. (ja) confirms that any total enlargement would not be permitted development if it would exceed the limits set out in (e) to (j). Total enlargement means the enlarged part together with any existing enlargement of the original dwellinghouse to which it will be joined.

The proposed extension would be joined to the previous rear addition and would extend out as far as the side wall of the garage. Page 22 of the Permitted development rights for householders Technical Guidance September 2019 (technical guidance) states that a wall forming a side elevation of a house will be any wall that cannot be identified as being a front or a rear wall. It clarifies that where an extension is beyond any side wall the restrictions in (j) will apply.

The appeal property in these terms has two side walls; that of the single storey former garage and the main two storey side wall of the house. The extension would project beyond the main house wall and therefore in terms of (j) the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse.

The width of the proposed extension, when taken together with the rear extension already constructed, would be more than half the width of the original dwellinghouse. Consequently, even if the proposed extension could meet the criteria under [name].1.(g) as suggested by the appellant, the proposal would fail to meet the criteria in paragraph A.1(j) (iii) of the GPDO. The proposed extension can therefore not be classed as permitted development.

I note the appellant’s reference to the diagrams on pages 14 and 15 of the technical guidance in relation to the restrictions in [name].1.(e). However, although the side wall faces a highway it is not the dwelling’s principal elevation. The technical guidance confirms that principal elevation will be the part of the house which fronts the main highway serving the house and that there will only be one principal elevation on a house. The diagrams on pages 14 and 15 do not affect my interpretation and conclusion in relation to the appeal proposal as set out above.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal would not satisfy Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO as it would breach A.1. (j) (iii). Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.