Appeal 3327336

The appeal is dismissed.

The property address in the header is that of the appellant and forms one of a number of houses in the original development permitted under Ref. 02/02473/FUL and described as ‘Land and buildings Rear of [address], London’.

For the purposes of clarification, the reference to ‘a refusal’ in the first bullet point of the header is to all intents and purposes a deemed refusal. This is because the Council granted a new permission for the original development subject to a number of conditions. Condition no. 8 of that permission has the same wording as condition no. 16 in the original permission with the exception that the reference to Class E has now been excluded. This new permission stands alongside the original consent which remains intact. The purpose of the appeal application was for the condition to be varied so as to exclude the reference to his house, No. [address].

The main issue is whether condition no. 16 and its application to all the individual houses in the development is reasonable and necessary to safeguard the character and amenities of the premises and adjoining properties.

The grounds of appeal refers to the thrust of Government planning policy which seeks to ensure that a blanket restriction of permitted development rights should not normally be imposed on development. And the appeal statement provides examples, including extracts from the National Planning Policy Framework (most recent amendment December 2023) and the online resource provided by the Planning Practice Guidance.

Nevertheless each case must be addressed in the light of its individual circumstances and merits and I saw on my visit that there are two main factors that point towards the necessity to maintain the safeguards that a preclusion of permitted development rights currently provides.

First and foremost is the type and form of the development permitted and constructed pursuant to the 2003 permission. The two blocks of 3 two-storey terraced houses with one perpendicular to the other represent a unity of design that is appropriate to give them the clear and coherent presence required for an infill development in a locality with a predominance of Victorian terraces. Secondly, is the highly constrained size and location of the site, with its rearward aspect and proximity to the existing built form of the rear elevations of the terrace on the north east side of [address].

These factors combine because it is reasonable to assume that both significantly informed the nature, form and scale of the original development scheme and its need to be the optimum for the site and its setting. And as the officer’s report explains, his has been achieved firstly by each property presenting regularly arranged and uncluttered elevations to both the public and private realms and secondly by the design, proportions and materials of the six dwellings providing consistency both individually and amongst the group.

The report goes on to explain the Council’s view that the first four classes (A, B, C & D) of the 2015 GPDO (as amended) have the potential to cause harm to the character and appearance of the area and in some cases the living conditions for neighbours. [name] have carefully considered the appellant’s arguments, I agree with this analysis and do not regard the appeal statement as providing a convincing case as to why, given the constraints of the existing design and the small site, any individual proposal should not be subject to the process of an individual appraisal of its merits through a planning application. I also consider that the Council’s concession as regards Class E (curtilage development) is reasonable as the potential for harm would be far less. Finally, I consider that the limitation of the application to a single dwelling in a terrace of three would be illogical and inequitable.

For the above reasons, and having had regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed.