Appeal 6000189

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 28) comprises a terraced dwelling facing [address]. It contains a small single-storey rear outrigger, with a tiled monopitch roof and a door and small window on its rear elevation. This outrigger adjoins the side boundary with No 30 and is set away at some distance from the other side boundary with No

It is rendered in the same manner as the other rendered elevations of No 28.

The appellant does not dispute that the outrigger forms part of the original dwellinghouse. In relation to a building, “original” is defined in the GPDO 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. Following my site visit, I have no reason to disagree that the outrigger forms part of the original dwellinghouse as defined above.

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.

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. In this context and based on the submitted evidence, and my site visit observations, as a matter of fact and degree I conclude that the rear outrigger includes a side elevation.

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.

The appellant refers to two specific examples of single-storey rear extensions approved within the Borough under the GPDO. Based on the plans put before me, the No [address] example appears to have required demolition of a single storey rear extension. The evidence before me however does not clarify whether this extension formed part of the original dwellinghouse. This example also appears to have required demolition of a glazed rear bay window. However, I consider that structure to be substantially different to No 28’s rear outrigger which has rendered elevations and only small areas of glazing.

The other cited example is closer to the appeal site at No [address], and I saw during my visit that this property is of more similar form to No 28 than No [address]. It is also put to me that many Councils do not consider demolishing small outriggers as being part of a principal rear elevation. I must however consider this appeal having regard to the GPDO, its latest published Technical Guidance, the evidence before me and my site visit observations. The above purported examples therefore do not justify allowing this appeal. 1 Permitted development rights for householders (MHCLG, September 2019)

For the above reasons, the appeal is dismissed.