Prop flat roof single storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 2 January 2019 by Simon Warder MA BSc(Hons) DipUD(Dist) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 7 January 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/D1590/D/18/3212814 104 Blenheim Crescent, Leigh on Sea, SS9 3DX  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 Order).  The appeal is made by Mr and Mrs Skulnick against the decision of Southend on Sea Borough Council.  The application Ref 18/01154/GPDE, dated 6 June 2018, was refused by notice dated 9 July 2018.  The development proposed is described as ‘Prop flat roof single storey rear extension.’ Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is whether or not the proposed extension for which prior approval is sought is permitted development under the provisions of the Order. Reasons 3. Paragraph A.1(g)(i) of Part 1 Class A of the Order states that development will not be permitted if the enlarged part of a non-detached dwellinghouse would extend beyond the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse by more than 6m. 4. ‘Original’ is defined by the Order as the building which existed on 1 July 1948. The appellant’s evidence is that the rear wall of the dwellinghouse on that date was stepped to form a kitchen/bedroom/conservatory projection which spanned some two thirds of the width of the building. That projection was demolished and a wider, but less deep, rear extension has been constructed subsequently. The Council does not dispute this sequence of operations. Nevertheless, it considers that the depth of the proposed extension should be measured from the part of the rear wall which was not stepped back to create the now demolished projection. 5. However, the limitations in paragraphs A.1(g)(i) and (j) refer to the ‘original dwellinghouse’. In this case, that includes the now demolished projection. The proposed extension would not extend more than 6m beyond the rear wall of the former projection and, as such, would comply with the requirements of paragraph A.1(g)(i). Appeal Decision APP/D1590/D/18/3212814 2 6. The proposed extension would be attached to the existing extension. The appellant has referred to the final paragraph of page 19 of the Technical Guidance1 in this regard. However, that deals specifically with paragraph A.1 (g) of the Order. Paragraph A.1(ja) of the Order provides the relevant statutory position and confirms that any total enlargement (therefore, including any existing enlargement) must not exceed the limits set out in paragraphs A.1 (e) to (j). Paragraph A.1(j) states that development will not be permitted if the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse and, among other things, would have a width greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse. 7. Whilst the proposed extension would not extend beyond the side wall of the now demolished projection, the existing extension does do so. The proposed extension would be more than half the width of the original dwellinghouse. As such, the total enlargement would not comply with the requirements of paragraph A.1(j). Consequently, I find that the proposed extension would not be permitted development under the provisions of the Order. 8. Having reached this conclusion, it is not necessary to consider the effect of the proposal on the amenity of adjoining premises. Conclusion 9. For the reasons set out above, the appeal should be dismissed. Simon Warder INSPECTOR 1 Department for Communities and Local Government. Permitted development rights for householders: Technical Guidance, April 2017