Single storey rear extension 5m in depth

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 10 October 2018 by W Johnson BA (Hons) Dip TP Dip UDR MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 11 February 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/B5480/D/18/3206291 129 Bush Elms Road, Hornchurch, Essex RM11 1LU • 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 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (GPDO). • The appeal is made by Mr Stephen Clark against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Havering. • The application Ref Y0197.18, dated 4 June 2018, was refused by notice dated 2 July 2018. • The development proposed is a single storey rear extension 5m in depth. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matters 2. The Revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published in July 2018, after the appeal was lodged. I have had regard to the Revised Framework in reaching my decision. 3. For clarity and brevity, I have taken the description from the appeal form as it adequately and simply describes the proposed development instead of the much longer and detailed description given on the application form. However, I have added the word ‘rear’ in order to clearly define the proposal. 4. I note the appellant has suggested in their submission that they are willing to reduce the eaves height of the proposed development to 3 metres. However, in the absence of an amended application form, I will have to use the dimensions quoted on the original application form. I have determined the appeal on this basis. Main Issue 5. The main issue in this appeal is whether the proposal would comply with Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO. Reasons 6. The appeal property is a 2-storey mid-terraced dwelling. The appeal relates to the erection of a single storey rear extension, with an approximate depth of 5 metres with an eaves height of 3.1 metres, and an overall maximum height of 3.2 metres. When viewing the rear elevation of the host dwelling from the rear garden, only the adjoining property to the left has single storey rear extension. Appeal Decision APP/B5480/D/18/3206291 2 7. GPDO paragraph A.1 (i) of the GPDO states that development is not permitted by Class A if - the enlarged part of the dwelling house would be within 2 metres of the boundary of the curtilage of the dwelling house, and the height of the eaves of the enlarged part would exceed 3 metres. 8. In terms of the case that is before me, the appellant has indicated on the application form that the eaves height of the proposal would be 3.1 metres. This would be above the 3 metres stipulated in the GPDO. Given this, I conclude that the appeal scheme would not satisfy paragraph A.1 (i) of the GPDO. 9. In light of this, the proposal cannot be addressed by the prior approval process and it is therefore not necessary for me to consider its effects on the living conditions of the occupiers of 127 Bush Elms Road or any representations made on this issue by the Council or the appellant. Conclusion 10. For the reasons given above, and having regard to all other matters raised, the proposed scheme could not benefit from deemed permission under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. W Johnson INSPECTOR