Appeal 3352853

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 description of development included in the banner heading is taken from the Council’s decision notice, as it accurately and concisely reflects the appeal proposal. Under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 as amended (the GPDO), planning permission is granted for the enlargement of a dwellinghouse, subject to limitations and conditions.

Where an application is made for a determination as to whether prior approval in required for development which exceeds the limits in paragraph A.1(f) but is allowed by paragraph A.1(g) to Part 1, paragraph A.4(3) provides that the local planning authority may refuse the application where it considers that the proposed development does not comply with, or the development has provided insufficient information to enable the authority to establish whether the proposed development complies with the conditions, limitations or restrictions that are applicable to such permitted development.

The main issue is whether the proposed development would be permitted development under Article 3, Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO. Appeal Planning Officer APP/E0345/D/24/3352853

The appeal site consists of a two-storey mid-terraced property. At the rear, there is a two-storey gabled-ended outrigger which, as detailed within the [name] report, forms part of the original dwellinghouse. Having regard to the available evidence, I have no reasons to disagree with this view. Extending directly in line from this outrigger is a later single-storey flat-roofed extension, currently used as a bathroom, which matches the outrigger’s width.

As set out in paragraph A.1.(j) of the GPDO, development is not permitted under Article 3, Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A if the extension would project beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwelling and have a width greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse.

Based on the drawings listed on the Council’s decision notice (specifically drawing no.1355-2b – [name] and Elevations (amended)), the proposed extension would extend beyond the side wall of the outrigger, which forms part of the original dwellinghouse. Furthermore, from the plans before me, the width of the proposed extension would be greater than half the width of the original house (measured at the widest point).

Consequently, the proposal would therefore fail to meet the specific requirements outlined in Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, paragraph A.1.(j) of the GPDO and would not constitute permitted development.

[name].4(7) to Part 1 requires the local planning authority to assess the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of all adjoining premises, taking into account any representations received. Although one letter of objection was received by the local planning authority, there is no need to consider the impact on the amenity of the adjoining premises in this instance, as the proposal does not constitute permitted development. I note the appellant’s reference to other extensions nearby. However, their existence is of little relevance for the consideration of this appeal, which has to be determined with regard to the GPDO as in force at the date of the appeal decision.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, 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.