Single storey rear extension with a proposed depth of 6 metres from original rear wall, eaves height of 3 metres and maximum height of 3 metres

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 23 October 2018 by A Parkin BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 28 November 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/N5090/D/18/3205431 32 Arlington Road, London N14 5AS  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(1) 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 Sergiy Ivashchenko against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Barnet.  The application Ref 18/2135/PNH, dated 3 April 2018, was refused by notice dated 2 May 2018.  The development proposed is a single storey rear extension with a proposed depth of 6 metres from original rear wall, eaves height of 3 metres and maximum height of 3 metres. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. From the online application form it was not clear the date the application was made or what the description of the proposed development was. I have therefore used the information on the appeal form for both the date of the application and the description of the proposed development. 3. The appeal development would be a single storey rear extension with a proposed depth of 6 metres from the original rear wall, an eaves height of 3 metres and a maximum height of 3 metres. 4. Whilst on site I noted that the rear ground floor elevation of the building, as shown on the existing drawings, had been demolished, including the ground floor bay and the rear outbuilding and outrigger. Steel beams had been erected across the width of the rear elevation of the building, in part to support the bay window at first floor level. The rear ground floor of the building comprised wooden construction hoardings with a doorway and windows. 5. I raised these matters with the appellant and the Council, and the appellant responded that the demolition had taken place to facilitate the refurbishment of the house and construction of the loft conversion approved under a previous certificate of lawfulness. The beam had been inserted to support the upper floors. No response was received from the Council. 6. Prior Approval cannot be granted for a development that has already begun. Appeal Decision APP/N5090/D/18/3205431 2 Main Issue 7. Therefore, the main issue is whether or not the proposed development has commenced. Reasons 8. Section 56 (1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) (the Act) states ‘Subject to the following provisions of this section, for the purposes of this Act development of land shall be taken to be initiated (a) if the development consists of the carrying out of operations, at the time when those operations are begun’. 9. Section 56 (2) of the Act states ‘…development shall be taken to be begun on the earliest date on which any material operation comprised in the development begins to be carried out’. 10. Under section 56 (4) of the Act reference to ‘material operation’ in sub-section (2) includes ‘(a) any work of construction in the course of the erection of a building;’ and ‘(aa) any work of demolition of a building’. 11. Based on the information before me and my observations on site, I conclude that the demolition of the rear ground floor elevation of the building and the erection of steel support beams means that the development subject to this appeal has begun. As stated above, prior approval cannot be granted for development that has already begun. Other Matters 12. I am not familiar with the separate certificate of lawfulness referred to above, and it is not relevant to the appeal before me. Conclusion 13. For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal is dismissed. Andrew Parkin INSPECTOR