Appeal 6000046

The appeal is dismissed.

Under Article 3(1) and Class AA of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (GPDO), planning permission is granted for the enlargement of a dwellinghouse by construction of additional storeys. The Council refused to grant prior approval in relation to paragraph AA.2(3)(a)(ii), making reference to the effect of the proposed development on the external appearance of the dwellinghouse. This has been reflected in the main issue, below.

The Council have referred to development plan policies. Prior approval appeals are not determined on the basis of s38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended). I have taken the development plan policies into account only insofar as they are relevant to the prior approval matter under consideration.

As per paragraph AA.3(12)(b) of Class AA of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the GPDO, I have had regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) so far as relevant to the subject matter of the prior approval.

The main issue is whether prior approval should be granted under Class AA of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the GPDO, having particular regard to the effect of the proposed development on the external appearance of the dwellinghouse.

[name].2(3)(a)(ii) of Class AA of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the GPDO refers to the external appearance of the dwellinghouse. In this regard, the [name] Ltd1 judgment confirmed that the control of the external appearance of the dwellinghouse is not limited to impact on the subject property itself, but also includes impact on neighbouring premises and the locality.

The appeal site comprises a single-storey detached dwelling, [site address] (No 1). [address] has been extended to the rear, but presents as being a single-storey dwelling from the front. The side elevation of [address] facing [address] appears from the street scene as containing 2 levels, but the remainder of the dwelling is single-storey. Hence, [address] appears as consisting of predominantly single-storey dwellings which are broadly consistent in terms of their height, scale, and massing. The scale and size of No 1 currently complements the dwellings found near it on [address].

The proposed development would introduce an additional storey at first floor level at No 1. Due to its markedly increased height and scale, the dwelling as extended would appear noticeably out-of-keeping sat amongst the nearby predominantly single-storey dwellings along [address]. Its incongruity in this respect would be exacerbated by its prominent siting as the first dwelling encountered on the north side of [address] when entering the cul-de-sac. The character and appearance of the area would be undermined as a result.

I observed all of the 2-storey dwellings on Park Road referred to by the appellant. [address] (No 105A) and [address] (No 107) each front Park Road, whereas No [address] and is also set-back significantly from the rear elevations of dwellings fronting Park Road. Accordingly, the influence of No 105A and No [address] scene of [address] is limited. This is also the case for all of the other examples cited on Park Road, due to their minimal visual prominence when viewed from [address] near the site. As such, the examples cited do not alter the adverse impact which the proposed development would have upon the street scene within the short cul-de-sac of [address], which forms the primary visual relationship with No 1.

I therefore find that the proposed development would have an unacceptable and harmful effect on the external appearance of the dwellinghouse, and that consequently prior approval should not be granted under Class AA of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the GPDO. Whilst not determinative, I have had regard to Policy CS5 of Barnet’s Local Plan ([name]) (adopted 2012), Policy DM01 of Barnet’s Local Plan (Development Management Policies) (adopted 2012), and Policy D3 of The London Plan (published 2021). To the extent that they are relevant considerations within the terms of the GPDO, the proposed development would conflict with their aims that, amongst other things, proposals should preserve or enhance local character.

For the same reasons, the proposed development would conflict with paragraph 135 c) of the Framework which provides that, amongst other things, planning decisions should ensure that developments are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, while 1 CAB Housing Ltd v SSLUHC & [name] [2022] EWHC 208 (Admin), [2023] [name] 194 not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change (such as increased densities).

For the reasons given above, having considered all matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.