Appeal 6000048

The appeal is allowed and prior approval is granted under the provisions of Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (‘GPDO’) for single storey rear extension at [site address] , [name], Barnet [postcode] , in accordance with the application Ref 24/4239/PNH and the details submitted with it including drawing numbers 00, 01 and 02.

The original description of the development includes the words ‘to residential house’ As this term is superfluous, I have not included this in my Decision.

Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO grants planning permission for the enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse, subject to limitations and conditions.

Where an application is made for a determination as to whether prior approval is required for development which exceeds the limits in paragraph A.1(f) but is allowed by paragraph A.1(g) to Part 1(larger home extension), paragraph A.4(3) provides that the local planning authority (‘LPA’) may refuse the application where it considers that the proposed development does not comply, or that the developer 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.

[name].4(7) to Part 1 requires the LPA to assess the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of all adjoining premises, taking into account any representations received. In this case, the LPAs submissions confirms that Appeal Decision: 6000048 neighbours were consulted and there is no evidence of any objections being received.

It is also not in dispute that the proposal does not meet the limitations and conditions set out in Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO. However, the Council asserts that development is not permitted under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO because it would include engineering operations (the excavated patio) that are not permitted development.

Accordingly, the main issue is whether the proposed development is permitted under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO.

The appeal property comprises a mid-terrace dwelling. To the rear of this is a paved patio area and beyond this is the garden, which slopes up from the dwelling. This part of the garden is retained by a low wall and is accessed via steps off the patio.

The proposed single storey rear extension would have a depth of 4m and would extend across the full width of the dwelling. To facilitate the depth of the proposed extension and retain a similar patio area to the rear of the dwelling as already exists, part of the rear garden would need to be excavated and lowered and a new retaining wall and steps provided.

To facilitate most extensions and in particular larger extensions, some alterations, including excavation works and retaining structures are likely to be necessary. It is also a matter of judgement for the decision maker as to whether such works are necessary to facilitate a proposal.

In this case, the proposed patio area is comparable in size to that which already exists. Therefore, this is not excessive and is also necessary for providing a level space to access the proposed extension and allow circulation between this and the garden. As such, these works are required as part of the proposed enlargement and extension of the dwellinghouse.

Whilst the patio area would extend the full width of the appeal property, this is a modest sized mid-terrace dwelling. Also, given the gently sloping nature of the garden the depth of excavation required would be limited. The retaining wall and steps would comprise a low and simple structure. As such, the proposed works irrespective of whether these constitute an engineering operation are not extensive and are necessary to facilitate the proposed larger extension. Moreover, I have not been referred to any provisions of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO which precludes such works.

The LPAs delegated report refers to a number of appeal decisions. However, the full details of these are not before me. Therefore, I am unable to draw any meaningful comparisons and conclusions from these.

For the above reasons, I am satisfied that the proposal is permitted development under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO. I, therefore, conclude that the appeal should be allowed, and prior approval be granted. Appeal Decision: 6000048

Any planning permission granted under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A is subject to the conditions in sections A.3 and A.4. This includes the submitted details with the application and the use of similar materials to the exterior of the existing dwelling house.