Six metre single-storey rear extension beyond the rear wall of the original dwelling

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 4 June 2019 by M Russell BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 25 June 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/M5450/D/19/3224153 85 Kynance Gardens, Stanmore, Middlesex HA7 2QJ • 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. • The appeal is made by Mr Mahadevan Arulkumar against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Harrow. • The application Ref P/5477/18/PRIOR, dated 10 December 2018, was refused by notice dated 22 January 2019. • The development proposed is six metre single-storey rear extension beyond the rear wall of the original dwelling. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. The description of the development on the Council’s decision notice included the height and depth of the proposal. The heights and depths given have assisted in my assessment. However, save for a minor correction to the spelling of metre, I have taken the description from the application form which I consider provides sufficient clarity. 3. The evidence before me confirms that the proposal is for a single storey rear extension measuring 6.0 metres in depth with a maximum height of 3.0 metres. When I undertook my site visit, I met the appellant on the front drive of the property. I was not granted access to the rear of the property by the appellant. However, from my position at the front of the property I was able to see part of the side elevation of a single storey, flat roofed rear extension of the approximate scale as that proposed. The part of the extension I could see sat flush with the side elevation of the original dwelling as per the position of the proposed extension shown on the submitted plans. Whilst I was unable to ascertain whether the development was completed, prior approval cannot be granted for development that has already begun, whether or not it is wholly or partially completed as confirmed in Winters v SSCLG & Havering LBC [2017] EWHC 357 (Admin). This applies even if the development was begun after the application was made or during the appeal process. 4. The Council originally sent the wrong decision notice to the appellant. A copy of this decision notice has been provided and I note it relates to a different property and different application reference. The appellant was subsequently issued with a further decision notice on the same day which specifically related Appeal Decision APP/M5450/D/19/3224153 2 to their application. The initial error was therefore rectified by the Council and has had no bearing on my assessment of the appeal. Main Issue 5. Whether or not the proposed extension is permitted under the above Order. Reasons 6. Issues have been raised as to the adequacy of information provided to the Council as part of the appellant’s notification to the Council. I also note the appellant’s contention that the decision was issued on the 43rd day following submission of the notification for prior approval and that the Council had not previously raised concerns as to the validity of the notification. However, the proposal before me has been carried out either in part or has been fully completed. I am unable to consider a notification for prior approval retrospectively and the conditions under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, Paragraph A.4 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 do not therefore apply in this instance. The issues raised are therefore immaterial and the appeal cannot succeed. 7. Whilst I have found that the proposal cannot be considered under the remit of a notification for prior approval, this does not prevent the appellant submitting a planning application for the proposal to the Council. I am also aware of a separate appeal relating to an enforcement notice in relation to development undertaken at the site including a single storey rear extension. It is for the Inspector dealing with that appeal to judge the merits of the development. Other Matter 8. The appellant makes reference to the fact that there have been no objections from neighbours. However, this does not overcome the fact that development which has already been undertaken cannot be considered under a prior notification. Conclusion 9. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Martin Russell INSPECTOR