Appeal 3323473

The appeal is allowed and prior approval is granted under the provisions of Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class AA of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the GPDO 2015) for the enlargement of a dwellinghouse by construction of an additional storey immediately above the topmost storey of the dwellinghouse, together with any engineering operations reasonably necessary for the purpose of that construction at [site address] , Hunstanton [postcode] in accordance with the application, Ref 23/00308/PAGAA, made on 16 February 2023, and the details submitted with it including plan nos 02 and 03 C, pursuant to Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class AA and subject to the conditions set out in sub-paragraphs AA.2.(2) and AA.2.(3) of the GPDO 2015.

[name] of the appeal form it is stated that the description of development has not changed but nevertheless, a slightly different wording has been entered from that on the planning application form. Neither of the main parties has provided written confirmation that a revised description of development has been agreed. Accordingly, I have used the description given on the original application.

[name] 2023, a revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published. I have had regard to the revised Framework in so far as it is relevant to this appeal.

Under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class AA of the GPDO 2015, planning permission is granted for the enlargement of a dwellinghouse consisting of up to two additional storeys, where the existing dwellinghouse consists of two or more storeys, subject to limitations and conditions.

Amongst these conditions, paragraph AA.2(3) to Part 1 requires the developer to apply to the local planning authority for prior approval. In respect of prior approval matters the Council have refused the application in relation to those matters which relate to the external appearance of the dwellinghouse and the impact of the proposal on the amenity of any adjoining premises.

In this context, the main issues are: • whether prior approval should be granted, having regard to the effects of the proposed development on the external appearance of the dwellinghouse; and • whether prior approval should be granted, having regard to the effects of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of the caravan adjacent to the appeal site with particular regard to their outlook.

The host property is a 2 storey dwelling within a sea front location. To one side is a caravan park. Most other buildings in the surrounds of the appeal site are residential in character and are varied in their design and scale.

Nearby to the appeal site there are a number of 3 storey properties. This includes some situated to the south, on the same side of the road as the appeal site and some to the north, on the opposite side of the road. Properties with 3 floors of accommodation and of quite considerable scale and height are therefore characteristic of the area. In views from the north, from both the road and from the path the other side of the sea wall, properties which are taller than the existing host dwelling are in the backdrop. In views from the south, the appeal site is seen in the context of the various 3 storey properties to its north.

The existing dwelling has a very shallow pitch to its roof. The proposal would incorporate the same roof design and the heightening of the dwelling would be limited to approximately 2.6m. Therefore, the proposed design moderates the effects of the introduction of a further storey.

I accept that the single storey caravans do provide a concentration of low-slung properties on the western side of the road and upon completion of the development, the host property would be markedly taller than them. However, given the variety of building heights in the local area and particularly the range of 3 storey properties situated north and south of the appeal site, the heightened dwelling would be in keeping with the street scene.

The footprint of the host property would be unaltered by the proposal. Therefore, undeveloped parts of its plot would not be built upon. This would preserve the separation to adjacent properties and the openness of the plot.

For these reasons, the proposed development would have acceptable effects upon the external appearance of the dwellinghouse. The proposed development would also accord with advice within the Framework, including that at paragraph 135 which sets out, amongst other matters, that development should be sympathetic to local character including the surrounding built environment.

The caravan beside the appeal site is served by a veranda which runs alongside its entire west-facing elevation, widening out to a significant depth in one section. The veranda also wraps around the caravan’s north-facing elevation. Therefore, the veranda is large and provides a considerable space for sitting out. Given this, much of the useable space of the veranda is set well away from the proposed development whilst closest to the appeal site, it is served by a high fence. This already provides for a quite significant sense of enclosure to those parts of the veranda nearest the appeal site.

The windows within the southern and western elevations of the caravan are all angled away from the host property. The one in the southern elevation overlooks the plot to the host property’s front, whilst those in the eastern elevation face towards the sea wall. This would lessen the effects of the proposed development when within the caravan.

Furthermore, despite an additional storey being created, with the shallow roof pitch design, the heightening of the host property proposed is, at 2.6m, quite modest.

For these reasons, the proposed development inclusive of its extended side wall, would not result in the host property forming an unduly dominant or overbearing feature. The effects of the proposed development upon the living conditions of the occupiers of the caravan adjacent to the appeal site with particular regard to their outlook would therefore be acceptable. Consequently, the proposed development would accord with advice within the Framework, including that at paragraph 135 which sets out that development should ensure a high standard of amenity for existing users.

Permission granted under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class AA of the GPDO 2015 is subject to the conditions set out in full at sub-paragraphs AA.2.(2) and AA.2.(3). Amongst these, the development must be completed within a period of 3 years starting with the date prior approval is granted, the materials used in any exterior work must be of a similar appearance to those used in the construction of the exterior of the existing dwellinghouse and before beginning the development, the developer must provide the local planning authority with a report for the management of the construction of the development.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed and prior approval should be given, subject to the conditions set out in the GPDO 2015.