Appeal 3294195

The appeal is dismissed.

The decision notice refers to Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended) (the GPDO). However, it is clear from the evidence that the actual dispute is in relation to Class AA. The appeal has been dealt with accordingly.

The main issue is whether the proposal is permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class AA of the GPDO.

[name].4.(1) makes clear that the "principal part" under Class AA, in relation to a dwellinghouse, means the main part of the dwellinghouse excluding any front, side, or rear extension of a lower height, whether this forms part of the original dwellinghouse or is a subsequent addition.

The Council argue that the proposal is not permitted development because it extends above part of the dwellinghouse that is not an original feature. However, the definition of “principal part” includes both original features and subsequent additions and so the Council’s assessment of this point is not correct.

Notwithstanding, it appears that there is a side extension part of the existing dwellinghouse that is of a lower ridge height compared to the main part of the dwellinghouse. Consequently, the proposal would extend beyond the principal part of the dwellinghouse and would not be permitted development as set out under [name].1.(i).

The definition of “principal part” differentiates between extensions and the main part of the dwellinghouse based on scale. There is no evidence that the internal function of rooms can factor into my assessment, or that such an assessment made on this basis would be lawful.

The Council has not substantiated that the existing dwellinghouse has been enlarged by the addition of one or more storeys above the original dwellinghouse.

It is inferred in their assessment that the existing dwellinghouse is not the original dwellinghouse for the purposes of applying the GPDO. However, I am not clear that this would be the case given that the dwellinghouse has been constructed and designated as a dwellinghouse separate from [address] of planning application P/07960/002.

Whatever the case may be, even if the existing dwellinghouse is not regarded as the original dwellinghouse for the purposes of applying the GPDO, it is a product of a sideward extension and not an upward extension of the dwellinghouse [address]. Consequently, I cannot reasonably conclude that the proposal would not be permitted development as set out under [name].1.(d).

Altogether, whilst the Council has not fully substantiated its reasons for refusal under [name].1.(d), it is clear that the proposal would not be permitted development as set out under [name].1.(i) of the GPDO.

Given that I have found the proposal is not permitted development, it is not necessary for me to consider matters relating to prior approval because it would not alter the outcome of the appeal.

For the reasons given, the appeal is dismissed.