Appeal 3307589

The appeal is dismissed.

There is no dispute between the main parties that the proposed development would be permitted under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class AA of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (GPDO), provided it would meet the conditions set out at paragraph AA.2 of the Order.

There is also no dispute between the main parties that the proposal would not result in any conflict with conditions AA.2 (3)(a): (i) impact on the amenity of any adjoining premises including overlooking, privacy and the loss of light, (iii) air traffic and defence asset impacts of the development; and (iv) whether, as a result of the dwellinghouse, the development will impact on a protected view identified in the [name] to [name] dated 15 March 2012 issued by the Secretary of State.

From the evidence before me, there is nothing to lead me to a different conclusion in respect of these matters.

Therefore, the main issue is whether prior approval should be granted when the proposed development is assessed against condition AA.2 (3)(a)(ii) of the GPDO, in relation to the external appearance of the dwellinghouse.

The appeal property comprises a detached, two-storey dwelling that forms part of a housing estate of dwellings constructed circa 1970 that have a similar appearance, even though some have been extended and altered. The dwellings in the surrounding area predominantly have two-storeys, although there is a cul-de-sac of bungalows opposite the appeal site.

The proposal would add a third storey to the host dwelling. The additional storey would replicate the existing roof profile, including a similar pattern of fenestration to that of the floors below and would use matching external materials. However, the positioning of the third storey windows would not adhere to the design and architectural features of the existing dwelling or the surrounding dwellings whereby the eaves adjoin the top of the windows. This would be out of character with the host dwelling and unsympathetic to the surrounding area.

The resulting three-storey dwelling would appear incongruous in its predominantly two-storey surroundings. Given the high degree of similarity in the existing dwellings in the immediate surroundings, the harm to the character and appearance of the area arising from the proposal’s design, height, scale and size would be significant. Furthermore, it would be prominent when viewed from [address], as well as from [name] to the north, where it would be seen in the context of other two-storey dwellings.

In conclusion, for the reasons outlined above, the proposed additional storey would result in an unacceptable impact on the external appearance of the dwellinghouse and the surrounding area.

Concern has been raised regarding the Council’s interpretation of AA.2 (3)(a)(ii) in its consideration of the proposal with regard to its height and the appeal property’s immediate context and wider area. However, the [name] judgement1 has concluded that “scale” is not excluded as a relevant consideration in the prior approval process under paragraph AA.2(3)(a); that the possible effects on the “external appearance of the dwellinghouse” under sub-paragraph (3)(a)(ii) will not necessarily be limited to the changes to its principal elevation or to any side elevation fronting a highway; and that the likely effect of the proposed development on “external appearance” is not implicitly confined to effects on the dwellinghouse which is to be extended, and that effects on the surrounding area must not be ignored. Therefore, the Council’s consideration of the proposal is entirely consistent with the [name] judgement.

For the reasons above, the appeal should be dismissed.