Appeal 3317191

The appeal is dismissed.

The name of the applicant on the planning application form was given as [name]. [name] has provided evidence that she informed the Council that this was a mistake and that she had submitted the application on behalf of her mother [name]. In recognition of this, the Council subsequently issued the decision in her mother’s name, which I have also used in the banner heading above.

In the interests of brevity and clarity I have taken the description of the development used by the Council in their decision notice as this omits words which are not a description of development.

Applications for costs have been submitted by the Council against the appellant and the appellant against the Council. These are the subject of separate

At the time of my visit, I saw that the development of the extension was substantially complete. I also note that the application has been submitted retrospectively. I have dealt with the appeal on that basis.

The appeal site relates to a 2 storey detached house. The ground floor comprises a hallway with a study on the right and the lounge on the left. It leads to a reception room which then connects to the main kitchen. At the rear of the lounge, there is an ante room with access on one side to a utility room that connects to the appellant’s separate kitchen and a toilet and washroom connected to the attached garage. On the other side the ante room has doors to the main kitchen and the dining room. The extension surrounds the dining room on 3 sides, part of which next to the small utility room is used by the appellant as a kitchen. The rear section appears to be unused and the side nearest the main kitchen, labelled as a second utility room, contains a washbasin used by the appellant. The corner section to the rear of this utility room has been partially demolished.

There is an extensive planning history for the site dating back to 1997. I understand that prior to the extension subject of this appeal the property had already been extended to the side and rear. According to the Council, the current proposal is not materially different to that which was subject of appeals against the refusal of planning permission and against an enforcement notice in

Those appeals were dismissed, and the enforcement notice upheld with amendments requiring the removal of elements that had not previously been permitted, and the site cleared of debris, within 9 months of the decision date (that is by 2nd January 2020). Demolition has not occurred, and the extension remains in place.

In the appeals decisions the Inspector concluded that the existing development, and proposed amended scheme, would harm the character and appearance of the host property and the outlook from neighbouring houses. In weighing up the planning balance, due regard was had to the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) under the Equality Act with the appellant’s needs identified as an important consideration. However, the Inspector concluded that her needs, namely 2 adjacent bedrooms for the appellant and her carer, a shower room, sunroom, and extended kitchen on the ground floor, could, for instance, be met within the space approved for an extension permitted in June 20182. This would have avoided the harm to the living conditions of neighbours.

In paragraph 57 of the decision the Inspector stated “Further, I do not see a reasonable prospect of the appellant being able to demonstrate conclusively that the necessary facilities cannot be accommodated within the existing authorised floorspace. [name] am wrong about that, and the appellant is able to provide conclusive evidence that further extension is indeed necessary, then a new planning application supported by that evidence would succeed.”

The appeal proposal was submitted in response to the above wording. It includes, among other things, letters from a Building Surveyor and an [name] which the appellant considers provides the conclusive evidence referred to by the Inspector.