Appeal 3282662

The appeal is dismissed.

There is no debate between the main parties as to how the appeal scheme would stack up with the provisions of Class AA insofar as the description of permitted development. The crux of the case relates to prior approval matters, specifically those concerning the external appearance of the proposed development.

With the above in mind, the main issue is whether the external appearance of the dwellinghouse, including the design and architectural features of the principal elevation of the dwellinghouse, and any side elevation of the dwellinghouse that fronts a highway would be acceptable, as per the requirements of condition AA.2 (3) (ii) (aa) and (bb).

The appeal building is a detached two storey dwelling of some substance and thus presence in the street scene. Its front (principal) elevation is set back from and facing the road. The side elevations face the immediate neighbours.

It is one of a row of three south east facing buildings of a strikingly similar design, size, scale and presentation to the street. These factors, as well as architectural details such as their mansard style roofs, decorative eaves and consistent fenestration rhythm lend a high quality uniformity to the street. For these reasons, and along with two other similarly designed and scaled buildings that face south around the corner, the appeal building contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area.

The proposed development would replicate the window style, eaves detail and roof design of the existing dwelling and thus the two that flank it. However, the additional height in particular, coupled with the span of what would be the new second floor, would stand the building noticeably proud of the others, resulting in a more prominent street scene presence. Even though the buildings are on marginally different land levels and thus their overall heights side by side are different, their scale and height as buildings are consistent, read as two storeys in each case. The proposed additional floor, whilst perhaps not significant alone in scale terms, would nonetheless appear more than modest. The appeal scheme would, for these reasons, disrupt the pleasant homogeneity of the street’s uniform appearance at this point and thus cause harm to the character and appearance of the area.

The external appearance of the dwellinghouse would therefore be unacceptable and thus the proposed development would not accord with the prior approval matters of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class AA of the Town and County Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended).

The appellant has drawn my attention to the wording of Class AA with regard to the main issue of the appeal. Specifically, in that it limits the design assessment to the design and architectural features of the front and side elevation only and does not empower the decision maker to assess the development in its wider context.

I disagree. In this regard, Class AA sets out that prior approval must be sought as to, amongst other things, the external appearance of the dwellinghouse, including the design and architectural features of the principal elevation of the dwellinghouse, and any side elevation of the dwellinghouse that fronts a highway. In the case of the appeal scheme, I have focussed on the principal elevation, which is the front for the purposes of the appeal building. I have explained that the side elevations do not face the highway.

That aside, I would find it difficult to divorce consideration of the quality and thus acceptability of a design in and of itself from how it would then appear in its context. [name] have acknowledged above, the use of matching materials and features in the proposed development may be acceptable for the dwelling, but not, as I have also explained, for its context. Class AA is clear in that prior approval is required as to the design and architectural features. It does not say that such a consideration of that design cannot or should not have regard to its context. Otherwise, it would explicitly say so. For me, and for a design to be acceptable, its context is as important as what it might be in isolation.

Also, and with regard to the approach endorsed by the [name] judgement1, by using the word ‘including’ in its assessment of the design of any works so pursued, one would naturally conclude that such an assessment can go wider than solely the dwelling itself. Indeed, the judgement explained that the control of the external appearance of the dwelling is not limited to impact on the subject property itself, but also includes impact on neighbouring premises and the locality. For the purposes of my explanation above, it’s context. 1 CAB Housing Ltd, Beis Noeh Ltd and [name] v SSLUHC [2022] EWHC 208 (Admin)

My colleague’s decision in 32662642 does speak of the narrowness of the assessment of the external appearance of the dwelling. [name] note they had regard, as have I, to the context of the proposals. Specifically saying .......’ the additional storey would add 2.2 metres to the building, however, no. 3 The Cedars is already slightly taller than the appeal site. The flank elevation, which fronts [address], is noted as being is set back from the road frontage and I note that house on the opposite corner of the junction is more prominent than the appeal site as a result of it being much closer to the road. The appeal site is afforded a level of screening by trees and shrubs to the South and West.’ A different approach was taken by my colleague in regard to 32634863. Both this and 3266264 were however issued prior to the clarification passed down by the [name] judgement in 2022.

The proposed development would not comply with the prior approval matters of Class AA for the reasons I have given. The appeal cannot therefore succeed.