Appeal 3280752

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is whether the proposal represents permitted development by virtue of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class AA of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the 2015 GPDO).

Schedule 2, Part 1, Class AA of the 2015 GPDO provides a permitted development right for the enlargement of a dwellinghouse consisting of the construction of (a) up to two additional storeys, where the existing dwellinghouse consists of two or more storeys; or (b) one additional storey, where the existing dwellinghouse consists of one storey, immediately above the topmost storey of the dwellinghouse, together with any engineering operations reasonably necessary for the purposes of that construction.

[name].2 of the 2015 GPDO establishes the conditions to which the permitted development is subject to, and sub-paragraph (3)(a) confirms that before beginning the development, the developer must apply to the local planning authority for prior approval as to (ii) the external appearance of the dwellinghouse, including the design and architectural features of (aa) the principal elevation of the dwellinghouse, and (bb) any side elevation of the dwellinghouse that fronts a highway.

The appeal site is an end of terrace, two storey dwelling. It is a short terrace of dwellings of a consistent form and appearance. The properties have pitched tiled roofs, and the principal elevation is faced in brick at ground floor level and render at first floor. Fenestration is traditional in appearance.

The proposal would seek to replicate the rendered appearance of the existing top storey. It would also replicate the form of the pitched roof. However, due to the additional storey, the rendered section of the dwelling would become demonstrably more dominant than the existing scenario. This would provide the building with a top-heavy appearance which would harm the well-considered and modest architectural features of the existing property.

I note the comments from the appellant that the dwelling should be considered in isolation. However, the three terraced houses represent an architectural set-piece. They are consistent in form and appearance and although they represent separate planning units, the external appearance and the architectural features ensure that the composition should be read both individually and as a group. When assessed as a group, the proposal would cause substantial harm to the terrace. It would interrupt the continuous roofslope and fundamentally alter the rhythm and symmetry of the building.

Consequently, when considered in isolation or as part of a broader terrace of three, the proposal would cause demonstrable harm to the external appearance of the dwellinghouse, including its design and architectural features. Accordingly, I conclude that the proposal would not represent permitted development by virtue of the 2015 GPDO.

For the reasons identified above, the appeal should be dismissed.