Appeal 6003541

The appeal is allowed and prior approval is not required under the provisions of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, paragraph A.4 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) for a single storey rear extension (4.00m depth, 2.95m eaves height, 3.75m overall height) at [site address] , Twickenham, [name] [postcode] in accordance with the application Ref PA25/4483 and the details submitted with it.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

Under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO, planning permission is granted for the enlargement of a dwellinghouse subject to specified 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, paragraph A.4(3) provides that the local planning authority may refuse an application where it considers that the proposed development does not comply with the relevant criteria so as to be permitted development. That occurred in this case.

The main issue is whether the proposed extension would constitute permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO.

Paragraph (j) (iii) of Class A.1 sets out that development is not permitted if the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse and would have a width greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse.

The appeal property is a two storey dwelling located on a short terrace of houses. To the rear it features a bay window and doors at ground floor and a bay window at first floor. There is no dispute that the bay is an original feature of the house. The protrusion of the bay is shallow, forming an architectural detail of the rear wall. As a matter of fact and degree, it is my view that the bay does not constitute a side wall in this case.

The ground floor part of the rear bay would be removed and the first floor bay window projection would remain above the proposed extension (as shown on drawing HFD/97/01). The height of the new extension accords with the limitations set out within Class A.1; a matter which is not disputed.

The Council have referred to a previous GPDO application at the appeal site that was refused. They also refer to an appeal decision for a similar scheme at another site in the Borough that was dismissed due to the extension exceeding the sides of the bay windows and exceeding half the width of the host dwellinghouse. I do not have the full details of either the previous GPDO application or the appeal scheme to compare to this proposal. However, I am aware that in some cases a bay window can be considered to constitute a side wall if it is substantial or has a large rearward projection. However, the angle and depth of projection of the bay at the appeal property does not possess the characteristics of a side elevation.

On this basis, for the reasons given above, the proposal would be permitted development within the terms of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO. No objections were received from neighbouring occupiers and therefore in line with paragraph A.4(7), prior approval is not required. The conditions relevant to the development are set out in Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO accordingly.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed and prior approval is not required.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed.