Appeal 6006848

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant has also submitted an appeal on the adjacent property 181 [address] (reference 6007110). Although there are similarities between the cases they must be dealt with on their own merits. [name] has been appointed to deal with that 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)1, planning permission is granted for the enlargement of a dwellinghouse subject to limitations and conditions.

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) Part 1, 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.

[name].4(7) to Part 1 requires the LPA to assess the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of any adjoining premises where any representations have been received from the owner or occupier those premises.

The main issues are whether the proposed development would constitute permitted development in respect to Class A, paragraph A.1; and if the proposal is found to constitute permitted development, the effect of the proposal on the amenity of any adjoining premise. 1 All cited paragraph numbers, unless otherwise stated, are from this Part of the GPDO.

The main parties agree the proposal would comply with all the criteria of paragraph A.1 except criterion (j)(iii). This requires that should the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse, it should not have a width greater than half of the width of the original dwellinghouse.

The appeal dwellinghouse is a 2 storey, end of terrace property with a single storey rear projection. The appellant confirms the rear projection is original2 but described it as having the side wall demolished3. On visiting the appeal site this was not the case, and the rear projection was complete and in use as part of the dwellinghouse.

The proposal is for a full width single storey extension which would be 6.0m deep and subsume the existing rear projection. In effect the proposal would remove 2 walls of the existing rear extension and extend its depth and width.

It is recognised that the appellant’s case revolves around the tense used in criterion (j) and were the rear projection demolished as suggested this would need to be considered. However, on submission of the appeal, and as evident during the site visit both side elevations of the original rear projection exist. Accordingly, the proposal would extend beyond a side elevation of the original dwelling and would be wider than half the width of the original dwelling. Therefore, it would not comply with criterion (j) part (iii).

The appellant has referred to 5 appeals, 44 of which are from 2010 and dealt with enforcement and lawful development schemes under a previous version of the GPDO. Although they grapple with what should be considered a side elevation of an original dwelling, they are not limited by the prior approval process. Specifically, that prior approval must be sought before beginning the development5. Therefore, for applications submitted through the prior approval process it would stand that all parts of paragraph A.1 must be applied at the time of the decision being made.

This is born out in the 5th appeal6 which does relate to a prior approval application, but prior to the decision being made the side elevation in question had been demolished to create a flat rear elevation.

Therefore, although instructive these 5 appeals do not alter the above findings as the side elevation in question is still in existence. The proposal would not therefore constitute permitted development in respect of Class A, paragraph A.1.

As considerations in relation to the amenity of any adjoining premises is a follow-on condition stage under paragraph A.4(7), it can therefore only apply if the development is otherwise permitted development. As the proposal would fail to constitute permitted development, there is no need to consider this.

The appellant has also drawn my attention to several prior approval applications from other LPAs. It is unclear whether the side elevations in question were original 2 Section 2 of the appellant’s appeal statement 3 Sections 2, 4.3 and 5 of the appellant’s appeal statement 4 APP/H5960/X/09/2115991, APP/W4705/C/09/2118544, APP/H5960/X/09/2115904 and APP/M3645/X/10/2131184 5 [name].4 (2) and (10) of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO 6 APP/E0345/D/16/3160831 to the associated dwellinghouse and in existence at the time of decision, so are comparable to the scheme before me. As such they do not alter my findings.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.