Appeal 6001794

The appeal is dismissed.

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) grants planning permission 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 (larger home extension), paragraph A.4(3) provides that the local planning authority may refuse the application where it considers that the proposed development does not comply, or that the developer has provided insufficient information to enable the authority to establish whether the proposed development complies with the conditions, limitations or restrictions that are applicable to such permitted development.

The Council refused the application on the basis that the developers have not provided all the required information to meet the conditions as set out in Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A.4 (2) of the GPDO. In particular, that the proposal has not met the condition at paragraph A.4(2)(c), which requires the addresses of any adjoining premises to be provided, because a neighbouring property, namely [address], was not listed on the submitted application form.

Having regard to the above, the main issue is whether sufficient information, with regards to the addresses of any adjoining premises, has been submitted for prior approval to be granted.

The appeal property comprises a large, detached house, set within a generous plot, located within the open countryside. The surrounding area has a rural character. The property, along with [address] and [address] (No 217), form a group of three houses along the road.

No 217 is a detached dwelling which occupies a sizeable plot. It is located to one side of the appeal property, shown on the submitted site location plan as ‘[name].

A narrow, hardsurfaced, single width track that leads to [address] separates the appeal property and No 217. Thus, the appeal property and No 217 do not share a boundary.

There is no definition within the GPDO of ‘adjoining premises’. However, under the section of the application form titled ‘Adjoining premises’ the text reads “Please provide the full addresses of all adjoining premises to the house you are proposing to extend. This should include any premises to the side/front/rear, even if they are not physically 'attached'.

I understand the ordinary meaning of ‘adjoining’ to be ‘land or buildings that directly touch, share a boundary, or are in very close proximity to another property, often including those separated only by a road or path.’

With this in mind, although the track separates the two properties, it is my judgement that No 217 should have been listed on the application form, as it is immediately to the side and within close proximity of the appeal property. As the developer failed to do this, as required by the condition set out at A.4(2)(c), the proposal is not development permitted by Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO and prior approval cannot be granted.

Concerns are raised in respect of the Council’s handling of the application. Particularly with regards to the Council’s validation procedure and the second reason for refusal related to Section 327A of the Town and Country Planning Act

However, irrespective of this, in accordance with paragraph A.4(3) of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO, the Council opted to refuse the application. Procedurally, the Council dealt with the application correctly.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.