Appeal 3283293

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council has referred to development plan policies1 within the reason for refusal. However, the principle of development has been established through the grant of permission by The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (GPDO). Indeed, prior approval appeals are not determined on the basis of s38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Notwithstanding this, I have taken the development plan policies into account only insofar as they are relevant to the prior approval matters under consideration.

Under Article 3(1) and Class AA of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the GPDO, planning permission is granted for the enlargement of a dwellinghouse by construction of additional storeys. The Council refused to grant prior approval in relation to paragraph AA.2, and in particular the effect of the proposal on the external appearance of the dwellinghouse.

The main issue in this appeal is whether prior approval should be granted under Class AA of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the GPDO, having particular regard to the effect of the proposal on the external appearance of the dwellinghouse. 1 London Plan (2021) Policy D4 and Redbridge Local Plan 2015-2030 (2018) Policies LP26 and LP30

[site address] (the [name]) is a two-storey mid-terrace dwelling. No 442, at the end of the terrace, has recently been extended upwards such that it has a three-storey appearance. The neighbouring property at No 46 has also been extended in a similar manner. Again, this neighbouring property is an end-of-terrace dwelling. Despite these neighbouring extensions, the host property and those attached all comprise of two stories and these properties have a relatively uniform scale when viewed in the street scene.

Indeed, most of the properties in the surrounding area are a relatively consistent scale and have a fairly uniform appearance. As such, the fact that two nearby dwellings have been extended upwards does not override the prevailing uniform character of the area. In addition, unlike the properties which have been extended upwards, the [name] comprises a mid-terrace dwelling.

As such, the significant increase in height and bulk proposed would jar significantly with the other mid-terraced dwelling and the attached end-of-terrace dwelling. This visual harm would be clearly apparent within the street scene and would be far more pronounced than the extensions at No 44 and 46, given that the host property is in the middle of the terrace.

The extent to which the development would not be harmful in other respects does not overcome the harm which the development would cause to the external appearance of the dwellinghouse.

I therefore find that the proposal would not comply with paragraph AA.2(3)(a)(ii) of Class AA of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the GPDO, which relates to the impact on the external appearance of the dwellinghouse.

For the reasons given above, the appeal is dismissed.