Single storey rear extension with pitch roof

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 February 2019 by H Baugh-Jones BA(Hons) DipLA MA CMLI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 25 February 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/V4630/D/18/3207138 17 Flaxhall Street, Walsall WS2 9TW • 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 Mrs Sofia Panzo against the decision of Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council. • The application Ref 18/0336, dated 15 march 2018, was refused by notice dated 23 April 2018. • The development proposed is single storey rear extension with pitch roof. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and prior approval is granted under the provisions of 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) for single storey rear extension with pitch roof at 17 Flaxhall Street, Walsall WS2 9TW in accordance with the application 18/0336 made on 15 March 2018, and the details submitted with it, pursuant to Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, paragraph A.4(2). Procedural matter 2. In its decision notice, the Council has referred to policies in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), the development plan and a Supplementary Planning Document. However, a prior approval appeal should not be determined, expressly or otherwise, on the basis of s38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, or as though the development plan must be applied. This is because the principle of development is established through the grant of permission by the GPDO. Nevertheless, insofar as the development plan and national polices assist in assessing the impact of the extensions on the amenity of neighbouring properties, I have had regard to them. Background and main issues 3. Development permitted under Class A of the GPDO is subject to certain conditions. Paragraph A.4(5) of Class A of the GPDO requires the local planning authority to notify adjoining owners or occupiers about the proposed development. Paragraph A.4(7) of Class A of the GPDO sets out that where any owner or occupier of adjoining premises objects, the prior approval of the local planning authority is required as to the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of any adjoining premises. Appeal Decision APP/V4630/D/18/3207138 2 4. An objection has been made by the owners of the adjoining property, 19 Flaxhall Street including in respect of outlook, light and sunlight. I must therefore have regard to the effects of the proposal on both no 19 and the other adjoining property, no 15. Accordingly, the main issues are: (i) whether the proposal would constitute permitted development, having particular regard to the provisions of Paragraph A.1(i) of Class A of the GPDO; and if so (ii) the effects of the proposal on the living conditions (amenity) of the occupiers of Nos 15 and 19 Flaxhall Street with particular regard to outlook, light and sunlight. Reasons Whether permitted development 5. The appeal property is a two-storey dwelling. The application form states that the proposed extension would be of a single-storey extending 6m from the rear elevation of the dwelling and would be 4m high with an eaves height of 2.7m where it would join the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse. 6. Due to a change in levels, the ground levels to enable the construction of the rear part of the extension would need to be raised by 370mm. This appears to be the Council’s measurement and it has not been challenged by the appellant. I have no reason to question its accuracy. The extension would therefore have an eaves height greater than 3m above the ground level of the lower part of the garden. However, the Council’s evidence is limited to a checkbox exercise with only brief commentary provided. There is no explanation of why it has reached its view, in relation to his specific matter, that the proposal cannot be permitted development. 7. Technical Guidance1 sets out that “references to height (for example, the heights of the eaves on a house extension) is the height measured from ground level. (Note, ground level is the surface of the ground immediately adjacent to the building in question and would not include any addition laid on top of the ground such as decking. Where ground level is not uniform (for example if the ground is sloping), then the ground level is the highest part of the surface of the ground next to the building).” 8. Having regard to this guidance, and given that the ground level where the proposed extension would be sited is not uniform, it is reasonable and appropriate to measure the height of the eaves of the proposed extension, for the purposes of Class A of the GPDO, from the ground level next to the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse. This would be less than 3m. Thus, without any substantive evidence to demonstrate otherwise, I am satisfied that the proposal would meet the provisions Paragraph A.1(i) of Class A of the GPDO and would thus constitute permitted development. Living conditions 9. The orientation of the appeal property to its neighbours on either side relative to the path of the sun means that overshadowing could not occur to no 15 for most of the day. There would, however be an effect later-on in the afternoon but this would be minimal and acceptable. 1 Permitted development rights for householders Technical Guidance, April 2017, Department for Communities and Local Government Appeal Decision APP/V4630/D/18/3207138 3 10. I have taken account of the Council’s 45 degree code and acknowledge that the proposed extension would breach it in relation to no 15’s kitchen window. However, there is already a section of brick wall extending along the rear boundary between no 15 and the appeal property beyond which there are sheds next to each other in each garden. The eaves of the proposed extension would not be of a materially greater height in comparison to these existing structures such that it would result in a material difference to the outlook of no 15’s occupiers. Neither would the proposal have a marked effect on the amount of ambient light reaching that property. 11. The main rear elevation of no 19 sits further back than that of the appeal property. Given the orientation of the two properties and their relationship to one another, overshadowing of no 19 would occur for only a very short period after sunrise. The effects in this respect would be minimal and acceptable. 12. In terms of ambient light, there would be no unacceptable effects on no 19’s nearest habitable room window given that the side of the proposed extension would sit away from the boundary with no 19 by about the width of the appeal property’s side passageway. This would also prevent a harmful outlook for no 19’s occupiers including from their conservatory. 13. In addition to all of this, the rear gardens of properties on this side of Flaxhall Street are very generous and create an overall spacious aspect from the rear rooms, both at ground and first floor levels. Overall, a satisfactory outlook from both neighbouring properties would be maintained. Conditions 14. Any planning permission granted for the development under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A is subject to the conditions A.4(13), A.4(14) and A.4(15), which specify that the development shall be completed on or before 30th May 2019, that the developer shall notify the local planning authority in writing of the completion of the development as soon as reasonably practicable after completion, and such notification shall include the name of the developer, the address or location of the development, and the date of completion. 15. Although the Council has suggested the imposition of conditions related to materials and the approved plans, for Part 1, Class A, A.3 provides that development is permitted subject to the condition that the materials used in any exterior work, other than in the construction of a conservatory, shall be of a similar appearance to those used in the construction of the exterior of the existing dwelling. It would be unnecessary and potentially unreasonable to impose a separate condition regarding materials. 16. The GPDO 2015 generally provides that, in respect of relevant Parts and Classes, development must be carried out in accordance with the details submitted where prior approval is not required, or in accordance with details approved. There is no justifiable need in this case to ensure certainty via the imposition of a ‘plans’ condition. Hayden Baugh-Jones Inspector