Appeal 6000286

The appeal is dismissed.

Schedule 2, Part 20, Class AA of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the GPDO) permits development consisting of works for the construction of up to two additional storeys of new dwellinghouses immediately above the existing topmost storey on a detached building in commercial or mixed use. This right is subject to limitations which are specified at paragraph AA.1, and conditions which are set out at paragraph AA.2. The conditions establish a requirement for developers to apply to the local planning authority for a determination as to whether prior approval will be required in relation to a number of specified prior approval matters.

The refusal reason references Schedule 2, Part 20, Class A of the GPDO. However, the case officer report states that the proposed development falls under Class AA. The application form also seeks prior approval under Schedule 2, Part 20, Class AA of the GPDO. The Council has confirmed at appeal stage that this was a typing error, and the refusal reason should have referenced Class AA. I have considered the appeal on this basis.

I have taken the description of development used in the heading above from the decision notice. This is a more concise description of the proposal and removes superfluous text from that set out in the application form.

The principle of development is established by the GPDO and the provisions of Schedule 2, Part 20, Class AA of the GPDO do not require regard to be had to the development plan. However, I have had regard to the policies of the Council’s Royal Greenwich Local Plan: [name] with [name] (2014) (RGLP), the London Plan (2021) (LP) and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) only in so far as they materials to the matters for which prior approval is sought.

There is no dispute that the proposal would comply with the conditions and limitations set out at paragraph AA.1 of Class AA, such that it would fall within the scope of permitted development rights, subject to consideration of relevant matters of prior approval. On the evidence before me I see no reason to take a different view.

Accordingly, the main issue is whether planning permission should be granted by Article 3, Schedule 2, Class AA of the GPDO, with regard to whether the proposal would satisfy condition AA.2(1)(e), with reference to the effect of the proposal on the external appearance of the building.

The appeal site relates to a three-storey building located to the rear of [name]. The property includes commercial space on the ground floor and residential accommodation on the upper floors. Surrounding development along [name] mainly comprises retail units on the ground floor and residential uses on the upper floors. Whilst the buildings vary in terms of age, height and roof form, most are three storeys in height. [address] most buildings range between one to three storeys in height. Given the appeal property’s height and positioning behind properties along [name], it is not readily perceptible within the street scene.

The additional two storeys would result in the creation of a five-storey building. The property would project above the roof level of most properties along [name] and this part of [address], appearing out of keeping with its surroundings. This would be somewhat exacerbated by its positioning to the rear of [name]. As a result of its increased height, it would be readily evident from the surrounding public realm, in particular [name] and [address] close to its junction with [name]. It would also be readily apparent at the junction of [address] and [address], particularly during winter months when trees are not in leaf. It would therefore represent an incongruous and overly prominent addition that would not complement the surrounding character of the area due to its prominence and proportions.

The appellant has drawn my attention to an appeal decision (APP/E5330/W/23/3329162), outlining how unlike that scheme, the appeal scheme does not have a street frontage. However, whilst the appeal building is set back from the street scene, it is still viewed within the context of the properties fronting [name]. Furthermore, as outlined, as a result of the increased height, the building would project above numerous properties along [name] and [name], and be readily visible within the street scene.

The elevations indicate that window details would differ from those in the existing building at lower floors which would serve to highlight that the extension would not appear as part of the original building. Although the top floor would be set back, this would be minimal and would not sufficiently mitigate the impact of the additional storeys. The appellant outlines that the building would be given ‘cosmetic treatment’ as part of the scheme. However, I have little information before me with regards to what these cosmetic treatments would be. These factors would however not overcome the harm identified above.

The appeal site is close to [address] (former Greyhound building) ([name] listed). No specific harm appears to have been suggested in respect of this listed building and, based on the evidence before me including my observations on site, I see no reason to take a different view.

I therefore conclude that, for the reasons above, the proposed development would be harmful to the external appearance of the appeal building. As a result, it would not satisfy condition AA.2(1)(e) of Class AA regarding the external appearance of the building.

In reaching my findings, I have had regard to the conflict with Policy D3 of the LP and Policies DH1 and H5 of the RGLP which collectively seek to ensure that development responds to the existing character of an area. It would also be contrary to the aims of the Framework in this regard and therefore the Council’s refusal of [name] was well founded

The appellant has drawn my attention to an appeal decision (Ref: APP/T1410/W/20/3263486) at a different site which sought prior approval for a two-storey roof extension under Schedule 2, Part 20, Class A of the GPDO. In concluding that the external appearance of the proposed building would be acceptable when viewed by itself, the Inspector outlined how the matter in dispute was limited to the external appearance of the building rather than its effect on the wider area.

Prior approval is however sought under a different class in the appeal before me. It is therefore not directly comparable to the other appeal. Nonetheless, the relevant part of the GPDO does not contain any language to the effect that the decision maker may only assess the impact of the external appearance on the building itself. The LPA, or decision maker, is therefore empowered to assess all aspects of that external appearance, and not simply those confined to the subject building itself.

The appeal site is in a central location which is well connected to services, facilities, infrastructure and public transport. The scheme would also provide a higher density form of development in a built-up area, providing additional residential units. It may also create high quality living environments for future occupiers. These considerations would however not outweigh the harm I have identified.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that prior approval should not be granted and therefore the appeal should be dismissed. [planning inspector] - INSPECTOR