Appeal 6000142

The appeal is allowed and prior approval is not required under the provisions of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, paragraph A.4 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) for a single storey rear extension at [site address] , Golders Green, Barnet, London [postcode] in accordance with the terms of application Ref 24/5662/PNH and the details submitted with it.

The main issue in this appeal is whether the proposal would be permitted development, with particular regard to whether the existing extension on the rear of the property forms a side elevation of the original dwelling and, if it would be permitted development, whether or not prior approval would be required.

Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (‘the GPDO’) permits the enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse subject to a number of limitations.

The Council’s case is that the extension would extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse and would have a width greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse, thereby not complying with the limitations set out in paragraph A.1.(j) (iii) of the GPDO.

I saw at my site visit that the host dwelling has a single storey flat roof extension to the rear. There is no dispute that the extension was built at some point after the construction of the main dwelling and having seen on my site visit that the other property in the semi-detached pair does not have a similar extension, I agree.

However, the matter in dispute is whether the extension existed on 1 July 1948 and therefore comprises part of the original dwelling1.

The Council rely on a map published in 1953 which, they say indicates that the dwellinghouse had a rear outrigger. A copy of that 1953 map is not before me. The appellant does not dispute that the extension was in place by 1953 but has provided a map published in 1951 which does not show any outrigger on the rear of the property at that time.

Whilst the 1951 map shows the dwelling as part of a terrace and in this respect is not wholly accurate, I must reach a decision on the balance of probabilities. Based on the evidence before me, I conclude that the existing extension to the rear of the property was most likely erected after 1951 and therefore was not in place on 1 July 1948. As such, it does not form part of the original dwelling. Accordingly, the proposal would comply with the limitations set out in A.1.(j) (iii) of the GPDO and would constitute permitted development.

[name].4.(7) of the GPDO sets out that where any owner or occupier of any adjoining premises objects to the proposed development, the prior approval of the local planning authority is required as to the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of any adjoining premises. However, the Council’s Officer Report in respect of this proposal confirms that no representations were received regarding the application and, consequently, prior approval would not be required.

There is no dispute between the parties that the proposal would comply with the remaining parts of the Order.

Accordingly, I therefore find that the proposed development would comply with the conditions and limitations set out in Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO.

[name].3. of Part 1, Class A of the GPDO sets out the conditions subject to which development is permitted by Class A. Of these, only one is relevant namely, that the materials used in any exterior work must be of a similar appearance to those used in the construction of the exterior of the existing dwellinghouse.

[name].4.(11) further sets out that where prior approval is not required the development must be carried out in accordance with the information provided with the application unless the local planning authority and the developer agree otherwise in writing.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposed development would constitute permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO for which prior approval is not required. Therefore, the appeal is allowed.