Appeal 3290443

The appeal is dismissed.

After the date of the submission of the appeal, a court judgment was made regarding Cab Housing Ltd & OTHERS v SSLUHC [2022] EWHC 208 ([name]) which raised matters relevant to this appeal. Both main parties were given the opportunity to comment on this decision and I have had regard to the comments made.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the external appearance of the dwellinghouse.

[name].2.(3)(a) of the GPDO sets out matters for which the developer must apply to the local planning authority for prior approval. On this main issue, the Council refused prior approval in respect of matter (ii) the external appearance of the dwellinghouse.

The appellant refers to previous decisions by the Council relating to prior approval applications for similar proposals at this site. They emphasise that one of the decisions related to insufficient information being submitted regarding the date of the construction of the dwelling as well as the inclusion of a rear dormer, rather than the principle of external appearance.

Reference is also made to a Council’s officer report on one of the previous applications1 which states that the consideration of the external appearance of the dwellinghouse is limited to the design and architectural features of the principal elevation and any side elevations fronting a highway. The report also concluded that the external appearance of the additional storeys was in keeping with the existing building.

In respect of the current appeal proposal, the Council’s officer report sets out that its approach in respect of prior approval applications has changed. This is based on a number of appeal decisions elsewhere relating to the prior approval process which have confirmed that it is not appropriate to consider the external appearance of the building in a vacuum or in isolation and that the relationship between the appeal site and nearby properties can be relevant in considering external appearance.

The circumstances of the appeal decisions referred to by the Council may not be a direct parallel to the appeal proposal. However, these decisions indicate that in respect of applications for prior approval such as the appeal before me, it is a matter of planning judgment as to whether consideration is given solely to the effect on the dwellinghouse’s design and/or the effect on its relationship with the wider area. This approach is supported by the [name] judgment, which sets out that the Council is empowered to assess and control all relevant aspects of external appearance, and not simply those which impact on the subject building. The appellant also accepts that the wider context can be a material consideration.

Turning to the main issue, the appeal site is part of a residential streetscape extending along [site address] . Although there is a mixture of designs of dwellings, the buildings are of a relatively uniform height which contributes to the pleasant suburban character of the area. The dwelling which is the subject of this appeal complements this relatively consistent roof height and scale of development, and on that basis the relationship with the wider streetscape is, in this case, relevant to the consideration of the effect of the development on the external appearance of the dwellinghouse.

The proposal would significantly increase the height of the dwellinghouse. Due to the projection above neighbouring properties, this would introduce a jarring and discordant element into the relatively consistent scale of suburban development. The side walls of the extension would be readily apparent above the neighbouring buildings, and the scale of the upwards projection would give the building a vertical emphasis of an awkward and incongruous appearance. Although the design of the extension would reflect the existing front elevation and roof, this would not be sufficient to overcome the harm arising from the increase in height and prominence.

For the above reasons, I conclude that significant harm would be caused to the external appearance of the dwellinghouse, with consequent harm to the character and appearance of the area. The proposal would therefore not comply with the condition set out in [name].2.(3)(a)(ii) of the GPDO with regards to the approval of external appearance. The GPDO sets out that regard 1 [name]. 21/0638 should be had to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) so far as relevant to the subject matter of the prior approval. Due to the identified harm, the proposal would conflict with the Framework in respect of achieving well-designed places.

For the reasons given, the appeal should be dismissed.