Appeal 3296753

The appeal is dismissed.

Under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 as amended (the Order), planning permission is granted for the enlargement of a dwellinghouse subject to limitations and conditions.

Where an application is made for a determination as to whether prior approval is required for development which exceeds the limits in paragraph A.1(f) but is allowed by paragraph A.1(g) to Part 1, paragraph A.4(3) provides that the local planning authority may refuse the application where it considers that the proposed development does not comply – or that the developer has provided insufficient information to enable the authority to establish whether the proposed development complies with the conditions, limitations or restrictions that are applicable to such permitted development.

The main issues in the appeal are: • Whether the proposed development satisfies the requirements of the Town & Country (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 with regard to being permitted development under the above Order. • If so, whether planning permission is deemed to have been granted. and; • If planning permission is not deemed to have been granted, whether the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of any adjoining premises is such as to require refusal of prior approval.

The appeal property is a two-storey semi-detached dwellinghouse. The property has a brick-built chimney that projects approximately 0.6m from the rear of the property. The Permitted development rights for householders - Technical Guidance (MHCLG 2019) identifies a side elevation will be any wall that cannot be identified as being a front wall or a rear wall. Therefore, this projection, as a matter of fact and degree, forms part of the side elevation of the property.

[name].1(j) of Class A of the Order outlines that development is not permitted by Class A if, amongst other things, the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse and would have a width greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse.

In the proposed development, it would extend beyond the projecting chimney, part of which forms a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse. The extension would have a width greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse.

I acknowledge that the projection of the chimney is not hugely substantial and that it does not constitute habitable space as the appellant highlights. These factors, however, do not preclude it from constituting forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse.

The proposed development is therefore not permitted under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Order.

Based on the findings above, it is not now necessary to consider this further.

The appellant has referred to two other properties on [address] being granted prior approval for rear extensions. Looking at the evidence, I cannot be certain that the same circumstances were applicable in those cases. Regardless, I have found that the proposed development would not be permitted by the Order.

I acknowledge the appellants reasons behind seeking to extend the property. There is, however, no provision in the Order for such matters to be taken into consideration in assessing whether or not the proposed development would constitute permitted development.

The proposed development is therefore not permitted under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Order. For the reasons given above it is concluded that the appeal should be dismissed.