Appeal 6001921

The appeal is allowed and prior approval is not required under the provisions of Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) for single storey rear extension at [site address] in accordance with the application Ref 250572 and the details submitted with it.

The proposed development was originally described as ‘4.5m single storey rear extension. Rendered walls, roof tiles, white doors/windows - all to match existing’. During the course of the application this was amended to ‘Application to determine if prior approval is required for a proposed single storey rear extension’. I have shortened this in the banner heading and in my decision to remove extraneous wording that is not a form of development.

The proposed plans include the provision of an area immediately outside the external doors of the proposed extension, with steps leading down to the garden. That development is not subject to the application, and I have not considered it as part of my determination.

I have been given no indication that the appeal site is on article 2(3) land or on a site of special scientific interest.

The Council does not cite any other conflict with the above Order other than in respect of the height of the proposed development. I see none for myself. Adjoining neighbours were consulted and no objections to the scheme were received. As such, the main issue is whether the proposed extension is permitted under the Order, with particular reference to height.

The appeal proposal involves a single storey enlargement to a dwellinghouse that would be within two metres of its curtilage. Accordingly, it would not be permitted by Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the above Order if it would exceed 4 metres in height or if the height of its eaves would exceed 3 metres.

The appeal site is set on sloping ground, such that the proposed enlargement would be taller at its rearmost point than at its point of connection to the existing dwelling. There is a patio area to the rear of the dwelling, surrounded by areas of unmade ground on much the same level.

The Technical Guidance on permitted development rights for householders sets out that height is measured from ground level, defined as the surface of the ground immediately adjacent to the building in question, and excluding any addition laid on top of the ground such as decking. It also states that “Where ground level is not uniform (for example if the ground is sloping), then the ground level is the highest part of the surface of the ground next to the building”. This reflects Article 2(2) of the Order.

The Council’s submissions give little indication that it considered the content of Article 2(2) of the Order in determining the application. I see no reason why it should not be applied to the appeal proposal in a straightforward way.

I note that much of the garden is at a lower level than the unmade ground outside the dwelling. I have, however, been provided with no reason to doubt that the unmade ground outside the rear elevation of the dwelling is the correct datum point for the purposes of the appeal, and my visit to the site did not give rise to any.

The unmade ground around the patio is the highest part of the surface of the ground next to the building. When measured from that point, the height of the proposed development would not exceed 4 metres, and the height of the eaves would not exceed 3 metres.

On the evidence before me, the proposed extension meets the terms to be permitted under the above Order.

For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. Prior approval is not required.