Appeal 6001193

The appeal is dismissed.

Under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 20, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 as amended (the GPDO), planning permission is granted for works for the construction of up to two additional storeys of new dwellinghouses immediately above the existing topmost residential storey on a building which is a purpose-built, detached block of flats subject to limitations and conditions. The application seeks prior approval for an upward extension to provide two additional flats on this basis.

[name].1 of Class A sets out requirements that the proposal must satisfy to qualify for prior approval. The Council’s officer report (OR) indicates that these are met and the development complies with the requirements set out in this paragraph. Based on the evidence before me, I see no reason to disagree.

[name].2 details that development under Class A is permitted, subject to an application to the local planning authority for a determination as to whether prior approval is required, in relation to the conditions set out in [name].2(1). The Council allege that the proposal would be contrary to conditions A.2 (1)(a),(e) and (g); which relate to the transport and highways impacts of the development, the external appearance of the building and the impact on the amenity of the existing building and neighbouring premises including overlooking, privacy and the loss of light.

Reason for refusal no 3 refers to the proposal conflicting with paragraph A.2(1)(a) of Class A, Part 20, Schedule 2, of the GPDO, in the absence of a legal agreement to prevent future occupiers from obtaining parking permits to park vehicles on the nearby roads. The appellant has submitted a draft [name] (UU) with the appeal, that seeks to prevent future occupiers from obtaining parking permits. I shall return to this point.

In prior approval cases there is no requirement to have regard to the development plan as there is for development requiring planning permission. Nevertheless, the policies referred to in The London Plan (2021) and the Havering Local Plan (2021) are material considerations. Furthermore, there is a requirement to have regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) so far as relevant to the prior approval matters and as if the application were a planning application.

The first reason for refusal, relates to condition A.2. (1)(e) and highlights the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area and building. With reference to condition A.2 (1)(g), the Council’s second reason for refusal refers to the proposal as overbearing, dominant and visually intrusive harmful to the amenity of neighbouring properties, particularly nos 25 & [address], including loss of light and outlook. The third reason for refusal concerns condition A.2.(1)(a) refers to the transport and highways impacts of the development. I therefore consider the main issues to be the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the area and building; • the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties, particularly nos 25 & [address] in respect of privacy, daylight and outlook; and, • the transport and highways impacts of the development.

The appeal site is located in an area where the character and scale of surrounding development is mixed. To the east of the site, [address] is a six-storey building, and to the south there are a host of significantly taller buildings. However, the appeal property is a three-storey building set within a streetscape characterised by a mix of two and three-storey buildings of differing uses.

The additional storey has been designed to match the existing third storey in terms of design and materials, maintaining the existing character of the host building. Despite this, the proposed additional storey would result in a building of greater bulk and mass, at odds with the prevailing lower height of the existing group of buildings in its immediate vicinity.

Whilst the appeal site is set back from the road, the proposal would be visible from multiple vantage points including but not limited to [address] and [address]. From these viewpoints, the blank flank walls and additional height, would appear as a stark and visually prominent addition and would harm the appearance of the building.

The Framework supports upward extensions where the development would be consistent with the prevailing form of neighbouring properties and overall street scene. For the reasons identified above the appeal scheme fails to achieve this aim. In addition, the reference to not preventing or discouraging innovation or change is subject to the need to be sympathetic to the local character of the surrounding built environment.

For the reasons above, the proposal would have an adverse effect on the external appearance of the building. As such it would be contrary to condition A.2 (1)(e) of Schedule 2, Part 20, Class A of the GPDO.

The proposed massing does not protrude past the building line at the rear, and the appellants submitted Daylight and [name] indicates that all neighbouring windows would pass the relevant BRE diffuse daylight and direct sunlight tests.

Whilst the Council has not been able to fully assess the sunlight impact of the proposal on [address] as per the [name], I am satisfied the evidence before me indicates that the proposed development would not have a significant adverse impact on daylight and sunlight received by surrounding dwellings.

The OR notes a separation distance of approximately 20 metres between the rear elevation of [site address] and the rear elevations of the opposing dwellings in [address]. These dwellings form a staggered terrace of two‐storey flats, each benefitting from modest rear gardens and first‐floor balconies. During my site visit I observed that the intervening area is characterised by car parking, footpaths and limited areas of usable open space, resulting in a relatively constrained spatial relationship between the respective rear elevations. As a consequence, I find that an additional storey would not adversely impact the outlook from neighbouring residential dwellings.

For the reasons above, I conclude that the proposal would have not an adverse effect on the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties. As such it would be compliant with condition A.2 (1)(g) of Schedule 2, Part 20, Class A of the GPDO.

The site has a PTAL rating of 6a, the London Plan places a maximum car parking provision of 'car free' in all areas of PTAL 5-6. The appellant has submitted a draft legal agreement to prevent future occupies from applying for and obtaining a residents' parking permit.

The Procedural Guide: Planning appeals – England, paragraph 18.2.2. outlines that for appeals by written representation the appellant must ensure that the Planning Inspectorate receive an executed and certified copy of the planning obligation at the time of making their appeal.

I have not been provided with a signed legal agreement to mitigate the parking impacts of the development. In the absence of a completed legal agreement, I cannot be certain the proposal would not exacerbate local parking stress through increased parking on local roads by future occupants.

For the reasons above, the transport and highways impacts of the proposed development cannot be satisfactorily controlled. As such it would be contrary to condition A.2 (1)(a) of Schedule 2, Part 20, Class A of the GPDO.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed and prior approval should not be granted.