Appeal 6000049

The appeal is dismissed.

As part of the appeal the appellant has submitted revised and additional drawings (‘[name]). These are intended to supersede the following Drawings: Proposed Block Plan with [address] 4AVC-201, Proposed first floor plan 4AVC- 203 and Existing and [name] 4AVC-206, which were originally submitted with the application. The Amended Drawings include the swapping of the proposed front bedroom and bathroom locations. In addition, existing and proposed sectional drawings are submitted to confirm the height of the new first floor.

The Amended Drawings deal with the local planning authority’s reasons for refusal and do not alter the overall nature of the proposal. Therefore, I have accepted these in determining the appeal and do not consider that the interests of any party have been prejudiced by my having done so.

The Local Planning Authority (‘LPA’) have referred to development plan policies. As the principle of development has been established through the grant of permission by the GPDO, prior approval appeals are not determined on the basis of s38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. However, if necessary, I will take account of the development plan policies and the LPAs Supplementary Planning Guidance - Residential Design Guidance (2016) as far as they are relevant to any prior approval matters under consideration.

Since the application was determined, the revised National Planning Policy Framework, December 2024 (as amended) was published. In line with paragraph AA.3(12)(b) of the GPDO, I will have regard to this as far as relevant to the subject matters of the prior approval. Appeal Decision: 6000049

Subject to a number of qualifying criteria, paragraph AA (b) of the GPDO grants planning permission for the enlargement of a dwellinghouse for one additional storey, where the existing dwellinghouse consists of one storey, immediately above the topmost storey of the dwellinghouse, together with any engineering operations reasonably necessary for the purpose of that construction,

[name].1 of the GPDO sets out the circumstances in which development is not permitted by Class AA. In particular, it is disputed that the proposal would be permitted development against the criteria under paragraph AA.1(h), which requires that: the floor to ceiling height of any additional storey, measured internally, would exceed the lower of— (i) 3 metres; or (ii) the floor to ceiling height, measured internally, of any storey of the principal part of the existing dwellinghouse. The LPA assert that insufficient evidence has been provided as to whether the floor to ceiling height of the additional storey complies with this requirement.

[name].2 of the GPDO says that development is permitted by Class AA subject to a number of conditions. This also requires developers to apply to the LPA for prior approval as to a range of matters in paragraphs AA.2 (3) (a) (i) to (iv). The LPA refused prior approval for the matter described under paragraph AA.2 (3) (a) (i), which is the impact on the amenity of any adjoining premises including overlooking, privacy and the loss of light.

Accordingly, the main issues are: i) Whether the proposal would be permitted development under Class AA of the GPDO having regard to paragraph AA.1 (h), and if the proposal is found to be permitted development, ii) whether prior approval should be granted under Class AA of the GPDO, with regard to Class AA.2 (3) (a) (i).

The additional drawing: Existing and proposed section: AAVC – 212, shows the floor to ceiling height of the existing ground floor of the appeal property to be 2.34 metres. The floor to ceiling height of the additional storey is shown to be 2.5 metres.

Because 2.34 metres is the lower height for the purposes of paragraph AA.1 (h), and the proposed floor to ceiling height of 2.5 metres exceeds this, the proposal does not meet the requirement of paragraph AA.1 (h) and is therefore not permitted development under Class AA of the GPDO. Consequently, it is not necessary for me to consider the prior approval matter under paragraph AA.2 (3) (a) (i) with regard to the effects of the proposal on the amenity of adjoining premises.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.