To further extend the back wall of the above house into the garden, up to 6 metres, from the original back wall

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 29 January 2019 by Tom Gilbert-Wooldridge BA (Hons) MTP MRTPI IHBC an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 13 February 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/M1595/D/18/3203012 521 London Road, Grays RM20 4AD • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant approval required under Article 3 and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, Paragraph A.4 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended). • The appeal is made by Mr Hersch Sternlicht against the decision of Thurrock Borough Council. • The application Ref 18/00325/PHA, dated 25 February 2018, was refused by notice dated 3 May 2018. • The development proposed was originally described as “to further extend the back wall of the above house into the garden, up to 6 metres, from the original back wall”. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and prior approval is not required under the provisions of Article 3 and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, Paragraph A.4 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (GPDO) for a rear extension with a depth of 6 metres from the original rear wall of the property with a maximum height of 3 metres and eaves height of 2.7 metres at 521 London Road, Grays RM20 4AD in accordance with the application 18/00325/PHA made on 25 February 2018 and the details submitted with it pursuant to Article 3 and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, Paragraph A.4(2) of the GPDO. Procedural Matter 2. The formal decision uses the description of development taken from the decision notice, as this more accurately describes the dimensions. These dimensions are also stated on the original application form. Main Issue 3. The main issue is whether the proposal falls within the provisions for permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO. Reasons 4. The provisions of the GPDO under Article 3 and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A allow for the enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse as permitted development subject to certain conditions, limitations and restrictions. Under Paragraph A.1(g), until 30 May 2019 a terraced dwellinghouse can build a single storey rear extension up to 6m beyond the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse up to 4m in height. Appeal Decision APP/M1595/D/18/3203012 2 5. The appellant and the Council do not dispute that the property at 521 London Road is used as a house in multiple occupation (HMO). This is evidenced by an existing lawful use certificate for use of the property by 6 tenants (ref 15/00106/CLEUD) and was also the position at the time of my site visit. As such, the use of the property falls under Class C4 of the Use Classes Order 1987 (as amended) which is “use of a dwellinghouse by not more than six residents as a HMO”. 6. The Council states that the proposal cannot be allowed under prior notification as the property is not a C3 dwellinghouse. As such, prior approval cannot be granted and a full planning application would be required. 7. However, the appellant has referred to existing appeal decisions including APP/T5150/X/13/2200762 where the Inspector considered whether HMOs could be regarded as dwellinghouses. He referred to case law1 where the distinctive characteristic of a dwellinghouse is its ability to afford to those who use it the facilities required for day-to-day private domestic existence. Based on the evidence before me, the property provides such facilities and so can be regarded as a dwellinghouse. 8. While Article 2(1) of the GPDO excludes flats from the definition of dwellinghouses for Part 1 proposals, it does not exclude HMOs. Moreover, only those dwellinghouses that have become dwellinghouses by virtue of Class M, N, P, PA or Q of Part 3, Schedule 2 of the GPDO are excluded from permitted development rights under Class A of Part 1 in Schedule 2. Class L of Part 3, which concerns changes of use between dwellinghouses and small HMOs, is not mentioned. Therefore, I find that the proposal falls within the provisions for permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO. 9. Paragraph A.4(7) states that prior approval is required for extensions under Paragraph A.1(g) where any owner or occupier of any adjoining premises objects to the proposed development. The Council consulted the owner/occupiers of adjoining premises and received no objections to the proposal. Therefore, prior approval is not required for this proposal. Conclusion 10. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed and prior approval is not required. The appellant should note that Paragraph A.3(a) of Class A requires the materials to be used in any exterior work to be of a similar appearance to those used in the construction of the exterior of the existing dwellinghouse. Additionally, Paragraph A.4 (13), (14) and (15) require the development to be completed on or before 30 May 2019 and that the developer shall notify the local planning authority in writing of the completion of the development as soon as reasonably practicable after completion. Such notification shall include the name of the developer, the address or location of the development, and the date of completion. Tom Gilbert-Wooldridge INSPECTOR 1 Gravesham BC v SSE & O'Brien [1984] 47 P&CR 142; [1983] JPL 307