Appeal 6005516

The appeal is dismissed.

Schedule 2, Part 1, Class AA of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the GPDO) permits development consisting of the enlargement of a dwellinghouse by the construction of one additional storey, where the existing dwellinghouse consists of one storey, together with any reasonably necessary engineering operations.

Development is permitted under Class AA of the GPDO subject to limitations which are specified at paragraph AA.1, and conditions which are set out at paragraph AA.2. The conditions establish a requirement for developers to apply to the local planning authority for a determination as to whether prior approval will be required in relation to several specified prior approval matters.

There is no dispute that the proposal would comply with the limitations set out at paragraph AA.1 of Class AA, such that it would fall within the scope of permitted development rights, subject to consideration of relevant matters of prior approval. On the evidence before me I see no reason to take a different view.

The Council has raised concerns in respect of the effect of the development upon the external appearance of the host property. I therefore consider this to be the main issue in this appeal.

The National Planning Policy Framework and Development Plan policies, including supplementary guidance, can be considered relevant in prior approval cases but only as far as they relate to the development and prior approval matters. I have proceeded on this basis.

The main issue is whether planning permission should be granted by Article 3, Schedule 2, Part 1, Class AA of the GPDO, with regard to whether the proposal would satisfy condition AA.2(3)(a)(ii), with reference to the external appearance of the dwellinghouse, including the design and architectural features of: (aa) the principal elevation of the dwellinghouse, and (bb) any side elevation of the dwellinghouse that fronts a highway.

The appeal property, referred to as ‘ [site address] ,’ is a modern, detached, single storey dwelling with front and rear gardens and a driveway. The dwelling is located on a corner plot directly fronting [site address] with its side elevation fronting [address]. Dwellings in [site address] are two-storey with neighbouring dwellings being semi-detached Victorian properties. Further down [site address] are more modern 20th Century dwellings. [site address] descends from its junction with [address]. Consequently, [site address] sits at [site address] ’s highest and most visible location. The appeal property is also around [address] level. Overall, the appeal property forms part of a cohesive street scene which makes a positive contribution to the character of the area.

[name].2 (3)(a)(ii) requires prior approval to be sought for the external appearance of the dwelling including the design and architectural features of the principal elevation and any side elevation that fronts a highway. The appellant contends that, in considering external appearance, this should be limited to the appeal property only and should not include its wider context or street-scene. However, the use of the word ‘including’ identifies that the list that follows is not exhaustive, and other factors may be considered.

The proposal would add an additional storey to ‘ [site address] .’ The extension has been designed with matching features and materials to the existing building, and the scale and pitch of the roof would remain unchanged. However, due to the existing level differences between [site address] and the neighbouring Victorian dwellings, the additional storey would significantly increase the scale of the building, particularly in terms of the mass and height of the roof as proposed. The increase in volume from the additional storey and its roof would significantly increase the dwelling’s visual effect on the street scene and its neighbouring properties with a prominent addition.

A building taller than its neighbours may be appropriate in a corner location and at the road’s highest point in some circumstances. However, in the context of [site address] , the proposed development would be visually harmful. The additional storey would occupy ‘visual space’ that provides a sense of openness to [site address] , contributing positively to the open fields opposite the appeal property in [site address] . This open space highlights the distinctive Victorian properties, the importance of which are outlined within the Council’s Character Area Assessments Supplementary Planning Document.

The design of the additional storey would match the external appearance of the existing [site address] property. However, at present, the existing dwelling is low-lying, despite sitting above the highway, with limited visual influence. Accordingly, at present, the appeal property has limited visual presence when approaching [site address] from the south and allows views towards the Victorian dwellings from [address] when approaching from the North.

Consequently, the additional visual emphasis and presence generated from the proposed additional storey would be at odds with the current scale and subdued contribution made by the site and its dwelling. In contrast, the additional storey would visually compete with and materially detract from the neighbouring properties and would harmfully affect the neighbouring properties and wider street scene.

With regards to the proposed side elevation which would address [address], the additional storey would have no side facing windows at first floor fronting the highway in accordance with the GPDO limitations and conditions. However, this would be at visual odds with dwellings along [address], which provide more natural surveillance of the public realm. This therefore detracts from the success of the scheme to integrate the development into the street scene.

I note the appellant’s comments regarding the use of planning judgement regarding the assessment of the external appearance of the building. Whilst a considerable proportion of the GPDO relates to binary assessments, others require a balanced judgement based on the specifics of the case. The assessment of external appearance is one such instance and does not solely apply to applications for full planning permission.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would fail to satisfy condition AA.2(3)(a)(ii) of the GPDO, with reference to the external appearance of the dwellinghouse, including the design and architectural features of: (aa) the principal elevation of the dwellinghouse, and (bb) any side elevation of the dwellinghouse that fronts a highway.

The appellant has drawn my attention to several photographs of the appeal property from [site address] and [address] along with photographs of the other dwellings in [site address] and the view of the rear of [site address] from the neighbouring property to the rear. I can confirm that the appeal proposal was assessed from the same viewpoints as those provided in the appellant’s evidence.

The matters set out within [name].2(3)(a)(ii) of Class AA do not require assessment of the development on the Green Belt, including any impact on openness. Therefore, whilst the site is within the Green Belt, it has had no bearing on my consideration of this appeal.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.