Single storey rear extension projecting 5.1 metres

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 25 February 2025 by M Aqbal BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 16 April 2025 Appeal Ref: 6000062 142 Cat Hill, Brookhill Road, Barnet EN4 8HU • 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 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (‘GPDO’). • The appeal is made by Mr Monmohan Deb against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Barnet. • The application Ref is 24/3620/PNH. • The development proposed is single storey rear extension projecting 5.1 metres. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and prior approval is granted under the provisions of Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (‘GPDO’) for single storey rear extension at 142 Cat Hill, Brookhill Road, Barnet EN4 8HU, in accordance with the application Ref 24/4239/PNH and the details submitted with it including: Site Location Plan; Drawing Number: 14724/SP – Site and Block Plans; Drawing Number: 13924/02 – Existing Elevations; Drawing Number: 13924/01 – Existing Plans; Drawing Number: 13924/04 – Proposed Elevations; Drawing Number: 13924/03 – Proposed Plans and Drawing Number: 13924/05 – Proposed Section 2. An application for costs was made by Mr Monmohan Deb against the Council of the London Borough of Barnet. This application is the subject of a separate Decision. Background and Main Issue 3. Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO grants planning permission for the enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse, subject to certain conditions, limitations or restrictions. 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) of the GPDO but is allowed by paragraph A.1(g) to Part 1(larger home extension), paragraph A.4(3) provides that the local planning authority (‘LPA’) may refuse the application where it considers that the proposed development does not comply, or that the developer has provided insufficient information to enable the authority to establish whether the proposed development complies with the conditions, limitations or restrictions that are applicable to such permitted development. 5. There is nothing to suggest that the proposed development would not meet the criteria at GPDO paragraphs A1. (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (h), (i) and (k). At 5.1m long the proposal would exceed the limits in GPDO paragraph A.1.(f), but not those at paragraph A.1.(g). Appeal Decision: 6000062 2 In such circumstances, where any owner or occupier of any adjoining premises objects to the proposed development, the prior approval of the LPA is required as to the scheme’s impact on any adjoining premises’ amenity. 6. Paragraph A.4(7) to Part 1 of the GPDO, requires the LPA to assess the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of all adjoining premises, taking into account any representations received. In this case, the LPAs submissions confirm that neighbours were consulted and there is no evidence of any objections being received. 7. However, the Council alleges that the development does not comply with the requirements of Paragraph A.1(j)(iii) of the GPDO, as the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse and would have a width greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse. 8. Accordingly, the main issue is whether the proposed development is permitted under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO. Reasons 9. The LPAs assessment assumes that a rear bay which protrudes about 1m formed a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse. The LPA therefore assessed the proposed extension under both parameters for side and rear extensions. Consequently, the determining factor is whether the rear bay was a side wall of the original dwellinghouse. 10. The original dwellinghouse is defined in the GPDO as the house as it existed on 1st July 1948 or if built after this date, how it was originally built. In this case, on the information available it would appear that the original dwellinghouse would have included a two storey rear bay, albeit that the ground floor part of this was removed some years ago. Also, there is nothing in the GPDO, which indicates that if original walls are demolished then the limitations within it no longer apply. 11. The appellant has referred me to the Governments, Permitted development rights for householders - Technical Guidance, September 2019 (‘the Technical Guidance’). This says that: “A wall forming a side elevation of a house will be any wall that cannot be identified as being a front wall or a rear wall. Houses will often have more than two side elevation walls.” As such and drawing on the examples of other cases submitted to me, this is largely a matter of planning judgement based on site-specific circumstances. 12. As already stated, the rear bay would have projected about 1m, and on the information available to me, this incorporated chamfered sides at approximately 60° angle, which are likely to have comprised limited walling and mainly glazing. 13. Therefore, given its limited depth, angled design towards the rear elevation and its largely glazed sections, in my view, the projecting parts of the rear bay formed a feature of the main rear elevation of the dwellinghouse and did not form a side wall for the purposes of the GPDO. 14. For the above reasons, the enlarged part of the extension would extend beyond a wall forming a main rear elevation of the original dwellinghouse and is subject to and complies with the limitations under A.1(g)(i) to (ii) of the GPDO. Appeal Decision: 6000062 3 15. Consequently, I am satisfied that the proposal is permitted development under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO. I, therefore, conclude that the appeal should be allowed, and prior approval be granted. 16. The LPA has provided some examples of dismissed appeals where breaches in respect of the limitations under Paragraph A.1(j)(iii) of the GPDO were disputed. However, these were provided separately in relation to its cost’s rebuttal. Therefore, and in the interests of fairness, I have attached limited weight to these in determining this appeal. 17. Any planning permission granted under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A is subject to the conditions in sections A.3 and A.4 of the GPDO. This includes the requirement that the development be carried out in accordance with the details submitted with the application and the use of similar materials to the exterior of the existing dwellinghouse. M Aqbal INSPECTOR