Single storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 20 February 2025 by Alexander O’Doherty LLB (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 10 March 2025 Appeal Ref: 6000051 59 Cissbury Ring South, North Finchley, London N12 7BG • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant approval required under Article 3(1) and Class A of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended). • The appeal is made by Mr H Somani against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Barnet. • The application Ref is 24/3926/PNH. • The development proposed is described on the application form as, “single storey rear extension”. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Application for costs 2. The appellant made an application for costs. This application for costs has been dealt with in a separate decision. Preliminary Matters 3. Under Article 3(1) and Class A of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (GPDO), planning permission is granted for the enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse, subject to limitations and conditions. 4. Where an application is made for a determination as to whether prior approval is required for development which exceeds the limits in paragraph A.1(f) but is allowed by paragraph A.1(g) of Class A, paragraph A.4(3)(b) provides that the Local Planning Authority may refuse an application where, in the opinion of the authority the developer has provided insufficient information to enable the authority to establish whether the proposed development complies with the conditions, limitations or restrictions applicable to development permitted by Class A. The Council refused the application under paragraph A.4(3)(b). This has been reflected in the main issue, below. 5. The Council also refused the application under paragraph A.4(7) of Class A, which requires the Local Planning Authority to assess the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of all adjoining premises, taking into account any representations received. However, this matter only falls to be considered if the proposed development would constitute permitted development, which I address in the main issue below. 6. Regulation 8(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Appeals) (Written Representations Procedure) (England) Regulations 2009 (the Regulations) Appeal Decision 6000051 2 provides that, amongst other things, the Secretary of State may in writing require the Local Planning Authority to provide such further information relevant to the appeal as may be specified. 7. The submitted version of the Council’s Delegated Report was missing all of the pages after page 1. That version is clearly not a full and complete copy of the report, as no text is given for the ‘Officer’s Assessment’ section, apart from the words ‘Site Description’. Consequently, under Regulation 8(1) of the Regulations, the Council were asked to provide a full copy of the report, and this was received. The appellant was given an opportunity to comment on the full copy of the report, and I have taken the comments received into account. I am therefore satisfied that the appellant’s interests have not been prejudiced by the full copy of the report being considered in this appeal. 8. I have had regard to the copy of the metadata submitted by the appellant. Metadata relates to the PDF itself, not to the text within the document. It would be highly unlikely that the Council would seek to frustrate a legitimate request made by an Inspector, by providing a copy of a report that is different from that produced prior to the issuing of the Council’s decision on the planning application. In any event, the report itself is dated 4 December 2024, meaning that the recommendations within it were made before the Council’s decision was issued on 6 December 2024. I have therefore considered the report as being a true reflection of the Council’s decision-making at the time the application was determined. Main Issue 9. The main issue is whether sufficient information has been provided to establish whether the proposed development would be permitted development under Class A of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the GPDO. Reasons 10. The appeal site comprises a semi-detached dwelling, 59 Cissbury Ring South (No 59), which has a patio and a garden to its rear. 11. Article 2(2) of the GPDO provides that, amongst other things, unless the context otherwise requires, any reference in the GPDO to the height of a building or of plant or machinery is to be construed as a reference to its height when measured from ground level; and “ground level” means the level of the surface of the ground immediately adjacent to the building or plant or machinery in question or, where the level of the surface of the ground on which it is situated or is to be situated is not uniform, the level of the highest part of the surface of the ground adjacent to it. 12. The area of garden to the rear of the site clearly constitutes the natural ground level on site. The surface level has however been artificially raised by the incorporation of a patio to the rear of No 59. In this regard, the Permitted development rights for householders: Technical Guidance (published 2019) clarifies that ground level would not include any addition laid on top of the ground such as decking. 13. As the patio is in-situ, and in the absence of historical information showing the surface levels on site prior to the introduction of the patio, the exact surface level adjacent to No 59 is not certain. However, considering the gently sloping nature of the rear garden area and noting that the garden area continues past the patio up Appeal Decision 6000051 3 to the gates adjacent to the driveway at a low-lying level relative to No 59, it is likely that the level of the highest part of the surface of the ground adjacent to No 59 – the ground level in this case – is actually much lower than as indicated on Figure 1 submitted in the Appeal Statement1, which shows the proposed extension sited upon the existing patio. 14. It follows that, as measurements must be taken from ground level, it has not been demonstrated that the proposed development would comply with paragraph A.1(i) of Class A which provides that development is not permitted by Class A if the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would be within 2 metres of the boundary of the curtilage of the dwellinghouse, and the height of the eaves of the enlarged part would exceed 3 metres. As it has not been demonstrated that accurate information has been provided in this regard, the requirement under paragraph A.4(2)(a)(iii) of Class A, that the developer must provide the height of the eaves of the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse, has not been fulfilled. 15. The appellant has mentioned that the proposed extension would not incorporate the existing raised patio. Even so, as it appears that the maximum height of the proposed extension as stated on the application form has not been accurately calculated from ground level, it has not been demonstrated that the total height of the proposed extension would comply with paragraph A.1(g)(ii) of Class A, which restricts the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse to 4 metres in height. 16. For the reasons given above, I find that sufficient information has not been provided to establish whether the proposed development would be permitted development under Class A of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the GPDO. Other Matters 17. Following my finding on the main issue above, that it has not been demonstrated that the proposed development would be permitted development, it is not necessary to consider the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of 61 Cissbury Ring South, under paragraph A.4(7) of Class A. 18. Mention has been made of the potential application for a Lawful Development Certificate or for a compliance check via enforcement action to clarify the original ground level on site. However, neither of these options obviates the necessity for it to be demonstrated that the requirements of the GPDO would be met, which is the main issue in this appeal. The Council had the opportunity to request further information in line with paragraph A.4(8) of Class A. However, there is nothing in the GPDO which requires this power to be used before a Local Planning Authority refuses an application under paragraph A.4(3)(b) of Class A. Therefore, none of the above-mentioned matters changes my findings on the main issue above. Conclusion 19. For the reasons given above, having considered all matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Alexander O’Doherty INSPECTOR 1 Figure 1 is an indicative image (provided by the appellant for information purposes).