Appeal 6000155

The appeal is dismissed.

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 is 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 the conditions, limitations or restrictions that are applicable to such permitted development.

The main issue is whether the proposed development would be granted planning permission by Article 3, Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO.

The appeal site (No 31) comprises a two-storey semi-detached dwelling facing [address]. It contains a single-storey flat roof rear extension and a conservatory attached to the rear of that extension.

Development is not permitted by Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO if, as set out in limitation (j), the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse 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. In relation to a building, the GPDO defines “original” as, amongst other things, a building existing on 1st July 1948, as existing on that date; or if built on or after 1st July 1948, as so built.

The Government’s Technical Guidance1 advises that a wall forming a side elevation will be any that cannot be identified as being a front wall or a rear wall, and that houses will often have more than two side elevation walls. This guidance does not suggest a minimum depth in which a built feature can be considered as a side elevation for the purposes of the GPDO.

A small tiled monopitch roof protrudes above the existing rear extension flat roof and is attached to the main rear elevation of No 31. This monopitch roof is of very similar form to that which is also visible above the adjoining rear extension of No

This suggests that No 31 and No 33 each contained a short side elevation enclosed above by the monopitch roofs, and set in at some distance from the main side elevations of each dwelling.

Given the above context and based on the submitted evidence, and my site visit observations, as a matter of fact and degree I conclude that the proposed extension would project beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse.

The limitation (j) width restriction does not solely apply to the part of the extension that extends beyond a side wall of the house. The Technical Guidance clearly advises that where an extension fills the area between a side elevation and a rear wall, then the restrictions on extensions beyond rear walls and side walls will both apply. If a proposed extension extends beyond a side wall and is more than half the width of the original house, it would not be permitted development and an application for planning permission would be required.

Therefore, as the width of the proposed extension is greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse, it would not comply with limitation (j) and is thus not permitted under the GPDO. As the proposal does not constitute permitted development, for the purposes of this appeal there is no need to formally consult adjoining premises, as this could not change the outcome of this appeal.

It is put to me that other nearby Councils allow the removal of a bay to allow permitted development extensions. Be that as it may, I must consider this appeal having regard to the GPDO, its Technical Guidance, the evidence before me and my site visit observations. This purported approach of nearby Councils therefore does not justify allowing this appeal.

For the above reasons, the appeal is dismissed.