Appeal 6003589

The appeal is dismissed.

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 Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 as amended (the GPDO), planning permission is granted for the enlargement of a dwellinghouse subject to limitations and conditions.

The parties dispute whether the submitted plans correctly show what is ‘existing’, as they show an extension which is currently under construction, for which express planning permission has been granted. Class A of the GPDO dictates that the depth of rear enlargements is measured from the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse. Therefore, the proposed development is considered in relation to the original rear elevation of the appeal dwelling. This dispute regarding the existing plans has therefore not altered my recommendation.

Where an application is made for prior approval for development which exceeds the limits in paragraph A.1(f) but is allowed by paragraph A.1(g) of Class A, paragraph A.4(3) provides that the local planning authority (LPA) 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.

There is nothing substantive before me to suggest that the proposed development would fail to meet the criteria at GPDO paragraphs A.1 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (h), (i) and (k). Given that the development would measure 7.35 metres in depth and would not exceed 4 metres at its highest point, the proposal would exceed the limits in GPDO paragraph A.1(f), but not those outlined in paragraph A.1(g). Accordingly, in these circumstances, the conditions contained within paragraph A.4 apply to the development.

The main issue is whether the prior approval application was made “before beginning the development” as required by paragraph A.4(10) which states that development must not begin before the occurrence of either A.4(10)(a), (b), or (c).

[name].4(10) (a) and (b) state development must not commence until either the LPA has notified the applicant that prior approval is not required or, where it is required, given written notice of their prior approval. [name].4(10)(c) states the development must not begin before the expiry of 42 days following the date on which the information referred to in paragraph A.4(2) was received by the LPA without the LPA notifying the developer as to whether prior approval is given or refused.

The Council refused prior approval, and there is no substantive evidence before me to suggest that the decision was made outside of the required period.

In effect, the requirements set out under [name].4(10) are pre-conditions, and development will not benefit from permitted development rights if those conditions are not met.

The appellant contends that the prior approval scheme is merely an enlargement of the single storey rear extension that has extant planning permission. However, it has not been demonstrated that the development for which prior approval is sought can be clearly severed from the development under construction, given that the two elements form part of a single, large, open plan living space. Accordingly, the entire scheme, all of which is included within the description of development for this appeal, is subject to the conditions of paragraph A.4(10).

I observed that a substantial amount of development had commenced on site including, but not limited to, the ground floor slab and side elevation walls of the development for which permission has already been granted. Whilst these may indeed be part of implementing the existing permission, within the context of the proposed appeal development as described, these elements also evidently form part of what has been applied for, as a single rear enlargement.

Given that it is a prerequisite that prior approval is granted before work commences, it is not possible for prior approval to be granted retrospectively through this appeal. As work has commenced on development which forms part of the development for which prior approval is sought, it follows not only that prior approval is not deemed to be granted, but also that prior approval cannot be granted.

The prior approval application was not therefore made “before beginning the development” as required by paragraph A.4(10), and consequently the appeal development is not development permitted by Class A, Schedule 2, Part 1 of the GPDO.

For the reasons given above, the proposed development has failed to comply with the conditions of the GPDO, and I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

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