Appeal 3319364

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The main issue is whether the proposal is permitted development.

Schedule 2, Part 1, Class AA of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (GPDO) allows the enlargement of a dwellinghouse consisting of the construction of one additional storey, where the existing dwellinghouse consists of one storey1, together with any reasonably necessary engineering operations.

However, this permitted development right is conditional (amongst other criterion) on the roof pitch of the principal part of the dwellinghouse (following the development) being the same as the roof pitch of the existing dwellinghouse, and in respect of internal ceiling height of the proposal. 1 References to “storey” does not include any accommodation within the roof of a dwellinghouse, whether comprising part of the original dwellinghouse or created by a subsequent addition or alteration.

The existing roof has an eccentric pitch with the rear roof slope being of a shallower pitch. However, the proposal would have a traditional hipped roof which would have the same roof pitch all round. As such, the proposal would differ from the existing roof design. The appellant has not presented any evidence to dispute this. It is therefore my view that the proposal does not accord with the limitations and conditions of Part 1, Class AA in this regard.

Turning to the matter of the ceiling height, sub-paragraph AA.1(h) sets out that development is not permitted by Class AA if ‘the floor to ceiling height of any additional storey, measured internally, would exceed the lower of— (i)3 metres; or (ii)the floor to ceiling height, measured internally, of any storey of the principal part of the existing dwellinghouse’. The GPDO also sets out at paragraph AA.3(3) that a local planning authority may refuse an application where, in its opinion (b) the developer has provided insufficient information to enable the authority to establish whether the proposed development complies with, any conditions, limitations or restrictions specified in paragraphs AA.1 and AA.2.

To that end, whilst the application form indicates compliance with this requirement, the plans submitted with the application appear to indicate that this may not be the case given the overall height of the resultant building. Given that it is unclear whether the proposal would accord with this provision, and in accordance with the provisions of paragraph AA.3(3), it is therefore my view that the proposal does not accord with the limitations and conditions of Part 1, Class AA in this regard.

As a result, the development cannot benefit from the permitted development rights given by Class AA and therefore planning permission is required for the proposal. Therefore, the appeal must be dismissed. Given the above, it is not necessary for me to consider the prior approval element relating to the external appearance of the dwellinghouse.

It is therefore considered that the proposal does not meet with the requirements as set out in sub-paragraphs AA.1(h) and Class AA.2(2)(c) of Schedule 2, Part 1 Class AA of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended).

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. Ifeanyi Chukwujekwu APPEALS PLANNING OFFICER

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.