Single storey conservatory, which would extend beyond the rear wall by 2.5 metres, for which the maximum height would be 2.8 metres, and for which the height of the eaves would be 2.8 metres

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 21 September 2016 by Jane Miles BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 28 October 2016 Appeal Ref: APP/D5120/D/16/3157256 21 Cleveland Road, Welling, Kent DA16 3JP  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant approval required under Schedule 2, Part 1, Paragraph A.4 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended).  The appeal is made by Mr Khimji Hirani against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Bexley.  The application ref: 16/00871/GPDE, dated 19 March 2016, was received by the Council on 29 March 2016; the Council’s decision letter is dated 10 May 2016.  The development proposed is ‘The erection of a single storey conservatory, which would extend beyond the rear wall by 2.5 metres, for which the maximum height would be 2.8 metres, and for which the height of the eaves would be 2.8 metres’. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Reasons 2. Planning permission was granted in January 2016 for various extensions, including a two-storey extension, to this semi-detached property. As set out in the appellant’s statement of case, the basic structure of the approved extensions is largely complete. In addition, as also stated by the appellant, a start has been made on constructing an additional single storey rear extension beyond the approved rear extension. It is this single storey rear extension which is the subject of the notification to the Council for prior approval of a ‘larger home extension’, pursuant to paragraphs A.1 and A.4 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the GPDO). 3. However, paragraph A.4(10) specifies that the development must not be begun until the developer has been notified by the Council that prior approval has been either granted or refused or, alternatively, the 42-day period has expired without the Council giving any such notice. It is not suggested in this case that the Council failed to notify the appellant of its decision within the specified time period. In addition, and critically, there is no provision in the GPDO for a retrospective application for prior approval. Thus when, as in this case, development has already begun, prior approval cannot be given and the appeal must therefore be dismissed for this reason. Appeal Decision APP/D5120/D/16/3157256 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 2 4. It appears the Council was not initially aware that development of the single storey rear extension had begun. The Council’s decision was on the basis, in effect, that the development would not satisfy the requirements for permitted development set out in Class A.1 of the GPDO and thus that a planning application was required. In reaching that decision it took ‘the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse’ to mean the proposed single storey extension combined with the previously approved extensions. However, given my finding in the preceding paragraph, it is not necessary for me to consider the appropriateness or otherwise of that approach. 5. I note the appellant’s account of events leading up to the Council’s decision, and of the reasons for beginning work on the single storey rear extension in the absence of any feedback from the Council before its decision was issued. Nonetheless neither this nor any other matter raised has any material bearing on my reason for finding that the appeal must be dismissed. Jane Miles INSPECTOR