Appeal 6002548

The appeal is allowed and prior approval is granted under the provisions of Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, [name].4 of the GPDO for single storey rear extension to replace existing conservatory at [site address] , Thornton, Bradford [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/03679/PNH and the details submitted with it including; Location Plan Drawing No. 1277NT a; [name] and [name]. 1277NT 01 with the exception of the side extension as shown pursuant to Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, [name].4(2).

The application form specifically refers to single storey rear extension and there is no mention of a single storey side extension to be considered. The side extension also did not form part of the description of development on the Council’s decision notice. The appellant has confirmed that the side extension despite being shown on the plans did not form part of the application and I have determined the scheme accordingly. The side extension was shown on the plans purely to inform the builder and to receive costs for the job given the intentions for the rear and side extension to be built together. It is however subject to a separate assessment. For the avoidance of doubt, the side extension does not form part of the development before me and has not been considered or approved.

An application for costs was made by [name] against City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

Under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO, planning permission is granted for the enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse subject to limitations and conditions.

The Council’s decision notice sets out that the proposed single storey rear extension is not permitted development as it does not comply with the conditions, limitations or restrictions applicable to development permitted by Part 1 Class A of Schedule 2 to the GPDO. Specifically, the application includes the construction of an extension to the side of the dwelling. This process relates only to the provision of extensions off the rear wall of dwellings. Consequently, this process does not apply to this development and planning permission is required.

In that context, the main issue of the appeal is whether the proposed development would be granted planning permission by Article 3, Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO with particular regard to the plans submitted.

The appeal property relates to [site address] which is a two-storey semidetached dwelling with a stone and render exterior, also featuring sizeable rear amenity space and a driveway.

The proposal is for the construction of a single storey rear extension of the following dimensions: depth of proposed extension from rear wall of original dwellinghouse: 4.0 metres. Maximum height of proposed extension: 2.7 metres. Height to eaves of proposed extension 2.6 metres.

The application was made via the prior notification process for larger extensions to a domestic property. [name].1(g) of the GPDO explains that this process relates only to extensions to the rear of domestic properties. As set out above, the application form specifically refers to a single storey rear extension and there is no mention of a single storey side extension to be considered. The side extension also did not form part of the description of development on the Council’s decision notice. The appellant has confirmed that the side extension did not form part of the application and I have determined the scheme accordingly.

The appellant recognises that the plans show a single storey side extension, but this was to be the subject of a separate assessment and was purely used to inform the builder and to receive costs for the job given the intentions for the rear and side extension to be built together.

Although shown on the plans, the side extension does not form part of the application nor appeal. I have addressed this discrepancy by making my decision clear that the side extension does not form part of the development before me and that this element has not been considered or approved.

I have had due regard to the other limitations and conditions as set out within Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO and have assessed these accordingly. In doing so, I do not find any reason to not grant prior approval in this case. I therefore conclude that the proposed development would be granted planning permission by Article 3, Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO.

Notwithstanding the above, the appellant contends that the side extension is indeed permitted development. However, as the side extension does not form part of this scheme then it is not my role within this appeal to consider this matter further.

Any planning permission granted for the development under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO is subject to the standard conditions set out in paragraph A.3 including that the materials used in any exterior work (other than materials used in the construction of a conservatory) must be of a similar appearance to those used in the construction of the exterior of the existing dwellinghouse.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal is allowed, and prior approval is granted.