Appeal 6000958

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by applicant against Newcastle Under Lyme Borough Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision.

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)1, prior approval can be granted for the enlargement of a dwellinghouse subject to limitations and conditions.

If the application is for whether prior approval is required for an enlargement which exceeds the limits in paragraph A.1(f) but is allowed by paragraph A.1(g), paragraph A.4(3) provides that the local planning authority (LPA) may refuse the application if it considers that the proposed development does not comply, or that insufficient information has been submitted to enable the LPA to establish whether the proposal complies, with the relevant conditions, limitations or restrictions.

If the proposal is considered permitted development, then paragraph A.4(7) requires if any owner or occupier of any adjoining premises objects, the LPA must assess the impact of the proposal on the amenity of any adjoining premises.

The main issues in this appeal are whether the proposed development would be granted planning permission by Article 3, and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO and if permission would be granted, the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of adjoining premises. 1 All cited paragraph numbers, unless otherwise stated, are from this Part of the GPDO.

The appeal property is a single storey, semi-detached dwellinghouse with front and rear dormers in an established and suburban residential area. It is finished in brick and white render with cladding on the dormers and a tiled roof. The proposed extension is single storey, with a flat roof and parapet wall, located entirely to the rear of the appeal property.

Although the Council has not submitted an officer report it is clear from its reasoning on the Decision Notice, that the proposal only fails to comply with criterion A.1.(d). This states the height of the eaves of the part of the dwellinghouse enlarged, improved, or altered would exceed the height of the eaves of the existing dwellinghouse.

What constitute eaves is not explicitly set out in the GPDO. However, the Permitted Development Rights for Householders: Technical Guidance (updated September

clearly states that the eaves of a house are the point where the lowest point of the roof slope, or a flat roof, meets the outside wall. It goes on to confirm that parapet walls and overhanging parts of eaves should not be included in any calculation of eaves height.

From the information before me, the appellant states the eaves are 2.76m high. However, it is not clear if these are the existing eaves or that of the flat roof. Nor do the plans show where this measurement is from or what the height of the existing eaves are. The only identified measurement is a height of 3m for the parapet wall. This lack of certainty or clarity of height means it cannot therefore be concluded that the proposed development would comply with criteria A.1.(d).

As it is necessary for any proposal to be considered under Class A to comply with all criteria in paragraph A.1. it can only be concluded that the proposal would not constitute permitted development.

The need for the extension and that the principle of the design and siting are not in contention is noted. This does not negate the requirement to comply with all relevant paragraphs and criteria within the GPDO.

As consideration of the amenity of adjoining premises are a follow-on stage under paragraph A.4, they can therefore only apply if the development is otherwise permitted development. As the proposal would fail to constitute permitted development, there is no need to consider whether prior approval is required.

Concerns with how the Council has dealt with the application do not alter the planning merits of the case.

For the reasons given above the appeal is, therefore, dismissed.