Appeal 6005525

The appeal is allowed and prior approval is granted under the provisions of Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) for a 6m single storey rear extension at [site address] , Banks, Lancashire [postcode] in accordance with the application 2025/0838/PNH and the details submitted with it including plan nos 1298_01 A and 1298_02 A.

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.

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 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.

In this case, the Council’s decision notice refers to the proposed development being contrary to criterion (i) of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Order. No other conflict with any of the other limitations, conditions or restrictions have been identified by parties, and I see no reason to disagree.

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

Criterion (i) of Class A, Part 1, Schedule 2 of the GPDO states the height of the eaves of the enlarged part should not exceed 3 metres if the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse is within 2 metres of its curtilage.

The proposed rear extension would be within 2 metres of a boundary to an adjoining property. The proposed plans show that it would have a flat roof measuring 3 metres in height from ground level. Surrounding the flat roof is a parapet protruding beyond the height of the roof.

Whilst there is no definition within this part of the GPDO as to how eaves height is calculated, the Permitted Development Rights for Householders: Technical Guidance, updated 10 September 2019 (HTG) states that parapet walls should not be used in eaves height calculations. Moreover, the HTG provides an example, similar to the appellant’s proposed drawing, that shows that eaves height is measured to the top of the flat roof, excluding the parapet. As such, the eaves height in this case would not exceed 3 metres.

I note that the Council consulted neighbouring properties and that there were no objections.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development satisfies the requirements 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 with regard to being permitted development under the above Order and that planning permission has been deemed to be granted.

Any planning permission granted under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A is subject to the conditions in paragraphs A.3 and A.4. I consider that no further conditions are necessary.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.