Appeal 3352750

The appeal is allowed and prior approval is granted under the provisions of Article 3 and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class AA of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) for Notification for prior approval under the GPDO 2015 under Class AA for an upwards extension of one storey to a dwellinghouse at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 24/01236/GPDO, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions set out in section AA.2 of Class AA of the GPDO.

The description of development has been taken from the Council’s decision notice in the interests of clarity. This is reflected in the banner heading of this decision letter and the appeal has been decided accordingly.

The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (the Order) was amended on 31 August 2020 to introduce Class AA to Part 1 of Schedule 2, setting out permitted development rights for development consisting of works for the construction of up to two additional storeys on an existing dwellinghouse that consists of two or more storeys, or for one additional storey on an existing single storey dwellinghouse, together with any reasonably necessary engineering operations.

The Council concluded that the proposal would comply with the conditions and limitations set out at paragraph AA.1 of Class AA, such that it would fall within the scope of permitted development rights, subject to consideration of relevant matters of prior approval. On the evidence before me I see no reason to take a different view.

The Council’s decision notice incorrectly referred to AA.2.(1)(e) of Schedule 2, Part 20, Class A of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended). The Council clarified that its concern related to the conditions of paragraph AA.2(3)(a)(ii), which requires consideration of the external appearance of the dwellinghouse, including the principal elevation and any side elevation that fronts a highway. I have determined the appeal accordingly.

My attention has been drawn to other appeal decisions relating to developments for additional storeys. However, these were submitted during the appeal process. As a householder appeal, all interested parties would not have had the opportunity to make comments on the relevance of these decisions to the appeal proposal. As such, they have had no bearing on my decision.

The main issue is whether prior approval should be granted under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class AA of the GPDO, having particular regard to the effect of the proposed development on the external appearance of the building and its surroundings.

The appeal property, [site address] (No 7) is a detached dwelling in a predominantly residential area which has a sloping topography. On the opposite side of the road to No 7 the dwellings are generally detached two-storey properties, which gradually follow the gradient of the hill in a linear form, rising up the slope. This regular rhythm of development provides visual continuity which adds positively to the character and appearance of the area.

No 7 is situated on the opposite side of the road to the majority of dwellings, forming a short row with three other detached houses. These dwellings are set back from the road in an elevated position, higher than those directly opposite due to the topography. As a result of their similarities in design, style and scale the four dwellings form a small, but cohesive group.

No 7 is located at the end of this short row. To its other side, behind a large wall, fencing and mature vegetation, lies a well screened property of a different style, orientation and age than the surrounding dwellings. This property serves as a break in the regular pattern of built form, and ensures that the short row of four elevated dwellings are viewed independently from the surrounding long linear form of dwellings on the opposite side of [address].

The external finishes of the proposed upward extension would match the existing materials. The style of the building would remain largely unchanged, with the design replicating the existing, raising it up a floor. The proposed development would appear as symmetrical and balanced, with the proposed new windows aligning with the existing fenestration and the extended property sitting comfortably within the plot. The addition of an extra storey would not alter the proportions of the building to such an extent that would detract from its appearance.

The proposal would lead to No 7 being taller than the other three properties in the row. However, the design features of the property and the roof form would be consistent with that of the other dwellings in the row, enabling No 7 to continue to relate well to the neighbouring dwellings and ensuring that it would not appear as visually intrusive or incongruous in the context of the street scene, despite its prominent location at the entrance to its section of [address]. Moreover, as the proposal would not increase the footprint of the dwelling it would not alter the grain or density of the neighbouring built form. Due to No 7’s location at the end of the row its increased height would not interrupt an attractive pattern of stepping up of roofs as seen on the opposite side of [address] as the properties rise up the incline.

The proposal would therefore not harm the external appearance of the building or the surrounding area. Whilst not determinative, I have had regard to Policies D3 and D4 of the London Plan 2021 and Policies SP4 and DM10 of the Croydon Local Plan 2018 to the extent that they are relevant considerations within the terms of the GPDO. The proposal would accord with their collective aims that, amongst other things, developments deliver high quality, good design which responds to local character and distinctiveness.

Planning permission granted for development under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class AA of the GPDO is subject to the conditions set out under [name].2(2) and (3). No other conditions are necessary.

For the reasons given above, the appeal is allowed, and prior approval is granted.