Appeal 3326205

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 Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (hereafter, ‘the Order’) grants permission for the enlargement of a dwellinghouse consisting of the construction of up to two additional storeys where the dwellinghouse already consists of two or more storeys. [name].1(a) to (k) sets out the circumstances in which the permission granted by Class AA does not apply. The Council have not identified any conflict with the requirements of paragraph AA.1(a) to (k), nor do I have any evidence before me that would lead me to conclude differently.

[name].2 sets out the conditions that apply to the permission granted by Class AA. [name].2(3)(a) sets out the matters for which prior approval must be sought, with sub-paragraph (i) referring to the impact on the amenity of any adjoining premises, including overlooking, privacy and loss of light, whilst (ii) refers to the external appearance of the dwellinghouse including its design and architectural features of the principal elevation.

Where development would not comply with the conditions set out within paragraph AA.2(2) it falls outside the scope of the permitted development regime and does not benefit from the planning permission granted by virtue of Article 3(1) of the Order. In this case the Council considered that the proposal would fail to comply with the condition set out at paragraph AA.2(2)(b) that the development must not include a window in any wall or roof slope forming a side elevation of the dwellinghouse. Nonetheless, it went onto consider whether to grant prior approval for the matters set out at paragraph AA.2(3)(a).

However, if a proposal fails to meet the conditions of paragraph AA.2(2) it is not necessary or appropriate to consider whether prior approval should be granted for the matters set out at paragraph AA.2(3)(a) because such prior approval can only be granted for development that falls within the scope of the permitted development right. Consequently, I shall consider whether the proposal would conform to the conditions set out in paragraph AA.2(2) in the first instance and, if that is the case, I shall then consider whether to grant prior approval having regard to the matters at paragraph AA.2(3)(a).

Therefore, the main issues in this case are: • Whether the development would amount to permitted development, having regard to the condition at paragraph AA.2(2)(b) of the Order; • If the appeal succeeds in relation to the first main issue, whether prior approval should be granted having regard to the external appearance of the dwellinghouse and the impact on the amenity of any adjoining premises.

The proposed elevations (Drawing no 51 HH 04) and proposed floorplans (Drawing no 51 HH 03) submitted by the appellant clearly indicate two new windows within the side elevation of the proposed additional storey. Consequently, the proposed development would include a window in a wall forming a side elevation of the dwellinghouse and the proposal would fail to comply with the terms of paragraph AA.2(2)(b) of the Order. Therefore, it falls outside the scope of development permitted under Class AA.

As a consequence of my findings above, it is not necessary to consider whether to grant prior approval with regard to paragraph AA.2(3)(a) as, even if these matters were met, this would not alter the outcome of the appeal.

For these reasons and having had regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the proposal is not permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class AA of the Order and I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

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