Appeal 6003935

The appeal is dismissed.

The name of the applicant set out on the application form was [name], but the appeal was lodged by [name]. The appellant has confirmed that [name] and [name] are the same person. The right of appeal is given only to the original applicant, as confirmed by section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). Therefore, the appeal will proceed only in the name of [name].

The description of development above is taken from the Council’s decision notice, which the appellant has replicated on the appeal form. It combines the description of the proposed works on the application form with the pre-titled application form.

One letter of support was received in response to the Council’s notification process. As a result, the prior approval of the Council as to the impact of the proposed extension on the amenity of adjoining premises is not required.

The neighbour requests that their boundary fence line is not altered and that their boundary is not encroached by any building work, such as foundations, walls, drainage, or guttering. In this instance, permitted development rights only apply to works wholly within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse, so any breach of the boundary would automatically mean the proposed extension would not benefit from permitted development, and would require express planning permission.

The main issue in this appeal is whether the proposed extension, as shown on the submitted plans, would constitute permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the Order).

Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Order allows for the “enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse” subject to a number of limitations, conditions and restrictions. If the various requirements are met, then the proposed works would be “permitted development”.

The Council has not provided an officer delegated report to explain its reasons but relies on the ‘[name] notice. The notice is brief and does not specify which of the particular requirements A.1.(a) – (l) or conditions or restrictions the proposed extension does not comply with and why, apart from simply saying the “size and location” of the proposed extension does not comply with the requirements of Class A, Part 1, Schedule 2 of the Order.

However, the appellant’s appeal statement focusses on explaining that the projecting rear bay window, which is part brick and part glazing, is not a side wall but part of the main rear wall of the property.

The appeal therefore turns on whether the projecting bay window is classified as a ‘side wall’. This then has implications for the permitted size of a proposed extension. [name].1.(j) deals with scenarios where the proposed enlarged part of the dwelling would extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwelling.

The property is a semi-detached dwelling in a road of similar properties. At the rear I saw that the property, and others in the road, had a projecting two storey bay window feature. The projecting bay is an original design feature of the two storey properties and extends upwards to the first floor rear bedroom as well. I saw that whilst most properties had retained the first floor projecting bay, some of the ground floor bays had been subsumed into a variety of extensions. I do not have the planning history of these.

From looking at the plans and what I saw on site, the bay window projects out less than 0.90m. The projecting bay shares a solid wall boundary with the adjoining projecting bay of the adjoining semi. The other side of the bay window (which is part brick and part glazing) forms a return and creates a small step in the alignment of the rear elevation, as the wall then continues across the kitchen and back door.

The proposal would involve knocking down the ground floor projecting bay window and then erecting a single storey extension across the entire rear of the property. It would attach to the opening left by the removal of the bay window, and onto the remaining rear elevation of the dwelling. The new extension would not attach to the part glazed side elevation of the bay window closest to the kitchen, as the bay window would be removed and there would be no remaining side wall on this side of the bay window to attach the extension to.

However, on removing the projecting bay window, the shared solid side elevation of the bay window that forms the shared boundary with the adjoining semi would remain. This section of the projecting bay window is a ‘side wall’ that projects out beyond the rear of the property. In the dining room I saw this was currently exposed brickwork. The proposed extension would incorporate this small section of side wall into it. Hence, the proposed extension would extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwelling.

Where an extension would extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation, restriction A.2.(j)(iii) stipulates that the width of the proposed extension should not exceed a width greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse. It is clear from the submitted plans that the proposed extension would extend across the entire width of the property. Hence, the proposal would not comply with A.2.(j)(iii) and consequently would not constitute ‘permitted development’.

From the plans and my observations the height of the proposed extension would not exceed 4 metres in height and the extension would not have more than a single storey. Hence there is no breach of the other restrictions A.1.(j)(i) or (ii), but this is academic in light of the breach of A.1.j(iii).

If the appellant wishes to build an extension of the size shown, they would need to submit an application for planning permission to the Council.

For the reasons given above I conclude the proposed single storey extension would not comply with the requirements of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Order and would not be permitted development. The appeal is therefore dismissed.