Single storey rear extension please see attached drawing number 18.1790.10

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 19 February 2019 by W Johnson BA(Hons) DipTP DipUDR MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 13 March 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/P4225/D/18/3215668 9 Palatine Avenue, Norden, Rochdale OL11 5YP • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant approval required under a development order. • The appeal is made by Mr Daniel Seasman against the decision of Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council. • The application Ref 18/00766/HH42, dated 4 July 2018, was refused by notice dated 16 August 2018. • The development proposed is a single storey rear extension please see attached drawing number 18.1790.10. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and prior approval is not required 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) (the GPDO) for a single storey rear extension at 9 Palatine Avenue, Norden, Rochdale OL11 5YP in accordance with the application Ref 18/00766/HH42 (Drawings ref: 18.1790.10) made on 4 July 2018, pursuant to Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, paragraph A.4(2). Procedural Matters 2. Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, Paragraph A.4 (7) of the GPDO states that ‘where any owner or occupier of any adjoining premises objects to the proposed development, 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’. In this case, no objections were received, and prior approval is not, therefore, required. 3. The Government published the revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) on 19 February 2019, which forms a material consideration in the determination of the appeal. The principle changes to the Framework relate to the Housing Delivery Test. Matters relating to housing delivery are not at issue in this appeal. I do not consider, therefore, that it is necessary to seek additional comments from the parties in respect of the revised Framework or that there would injustice caused to any party by my taking the revised Framework into account in determining the appeal. 4. For clarity and brevity, the description in the banner is taken from the application form. However, I have taken the description in my decision from the appeal form as it more succinctly describes the proposal. Main Issue 5. The main issue is whether the proposed development would be permitted under the terms of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO. Appeal Decision APP/P4225/D/18/3215668 2 Reasons 6. The appeal building is a terraced house with a 2-storey outrigger to the rear. The proposed development would be a single storey rear/side extension with a depth of some 4.8 metres from the original rear wall, and a maximum height of some 3.7 metres. It would infill the area between the existing rear elevation and outrigger of the host dwelling, and the adjoining property. The dimensions of the proposed extension are not disputed. 7. Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO grants planning permission for the enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse subject to a number of exceptions, listed in Paragraph A.1. Paragraph A.1(g) allows, until 30 May 2019, for a single storey extension which does not extend beyond the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse by more than 8 metres in the case of a detached dwellinghouse, or 6 metres in the case of any other dwellinghouse, or exceed 4 metres in height. 8. The Council’s reason for refusal sets out that the proposal would result in the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse extending beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse and which would have a width greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse. This would be contrary to the provisions of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, Paragraph A.1 (j) (iii) of the GPDO. The Council has confirmed in its reason for refusal that it took its measurement from the recessed rear door in the rear outrigger. 9. During my site visit, I noticed the arrangement of the rear door, and the formation of the side elevation on the rear outrigger to the host dwelling, resulting in an under covered area in front of the rear door. However, I find that the proposal would extend from the side wall of the outrigger rather than the rear door. Whilst this would contain the under covered area in front of the rear door, the evidence suggests that the rear door, albeit modestly set within the outrigger does not itself form the side elevation of the dwelling. The Department of Communities and Local Government ‘Permitted Development Rights for Householders – Technical Guidance’ April 2017 (the Guidance) provides more detailed advice on the permitted development rights contained in Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO. From my findings during my site visit, I consider that the scheme complies with this guidance. 10. For the reasons set out above, the size, position and single storey nature of the proposed extension is covered by paragraph A.1 (j), and does not exceed any of the limitations of this part of the paragraph. I therefore find that the proposed development would be permitted development within the terms of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO. Conclusion 11. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed and prior approval is not required. Any planning permission granted under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A is subject to the condition A.3 (a) which requires the materials used in any exterior work must be of a similar appearance to those used in the construction of the exterior of the existing dwellinghouse. Additionally, conditions A.4(13), A.4(14) and A.4(15), which specify that the development shall be completed on or before 30 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 Appeal Decision APP/P4225/D/18/3215668 3 completion, and such notification shall include the name of the developer, the address or location of the development, and the date of completion. W Johnson INSPECTOR