6 metre single storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 19 February 2019 by A McCormack BSc (Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 13th March 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/M5450/D/18/3218167 11 Taunton Way, Stanmore HA7 1DJ • 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, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015, as amended (the GPDO). • The appeal is made by Mr Ketan Mandalia against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Harrow. • The application Ref P/4544/18/PRIOR, dated 10 October 2018, was refused by notice dated 21 November 2018. • The development proposed is 6 metre single storey rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matters 2. The Council assessed the original application for prior approval of the proposed development and determined that prior approval was required and was refused for the reason stated on the Decision Notice. The appellant has exercised their right to appeal that Decision. Notwithstanding this, the appellant has submitted very limited evidence in support of their case. The substance of the appellant’s submission relates to the approval of a similar proposal at 9 Taunton Way, adjacent to the appeal property. Accordingly, it is on the basis of the evidence of both the Council and the appellant that I have determined this appeal. 3. During the application process, the Council advised the appellant that the proposal could have been submitted under a Householder Application where a more favourable recommendation may have been put forward for consideration for an approval. Furthermore, I note this would have also given the option to retain the two-storey rearward extension subject to demolition under this proposal. This approach could have resulted in a more positive outcome for the appellant. Nonetheless, the appellant chose to lodge this appeal. Main Issues 4. The main issues are: • whether the proposal complies with the conditions, limitations and restrictions applicable to development permitted in the GPDO; and, if so • the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with regard to outlook and light. Appeal Decision APP/M5450/D/18/3218167 2 Reasons 5. I note the original rear elevation of the appeal property was stepped and a previous prior approval notification1 at the property was refused due to the proposal extending beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse and having a width greater than half the width of the original dwelling. 6. This appeal proposal has sought to overcome this by demolishing the original two- storey rear elevation element of the dwellinghouse. Notwithstanding this, the proposed demolition of the upper floor will not set aside the side wall rule, as set out in A.1(j) of Class A, Part 1, Schedule 2 of the GPDO. Moreover, the proposed extension would still have a width greater than half the width of the original dwelling. 7. The appellant submitted details relating to an approved scheme at the adjacent property at 9 Taunton Way2. This is a very similar scheme to the proposal before me in this appeal. I note the adjacent property has been extended 6 metres from the rear wall of the dwellinghouse and that the extension is a maximum of 3.875 metres in height and 3 metres high to the eaves. Moreover, the Council determined that prior approval was not required for that scheme. There is limited evidence before me to indicate why prior approval was not required in that case. Nonetheless, and in any event, I must determine this appeal proposal on its own merits and circumstances. 8. Whilst I have had regard to the adjacent scheme at No.9 as a material consideration, due to the very limited details before me, I give only limited weight to it in determining this case. The appeal proposal would be similar in size, scale and appearance to the adjacent single-storey extension. However, in terms of whether it is permitted development for which prior approval would be required, from the evidence, I find the proposal would not meet the criteria set out in Class A.1(j) of the GPDO to be considered as permitted development. 9. As a result, I conclude that the proposal would not comply with the conditions, limitations and restrictions applicable to development permitted in Part 1, Class A, Schedule 2 of the GPDO, particularly under A.1(j). Therefore, it is not permitted development. Consequently, I find there to be no requirement to consider the need for prior approval and the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with regard to outlook and light. Conclusion 10. Therefore, for the above reasons, and having had regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Andrew McCormack INSPECTOR 1 Application Ref: P/1851/14 2 Application Ref: P/0249/15