Appeal Decision 3256030 (Buckinghamshire Council - Minerals and Waste Planning *) — 2021-01-08

Appeal Decision 3256030 (Buckinghamshire Council - Minerals and Waste Planning *) — 2021-01-08
Outcome: Dismissed
Case type: Householder (HAS)
Development: Householder developments
Appeal type: Written Representations
Location: 86 Westbrook End, Newton Longville, MILTON KEYNES, MK17 0BX
Postcode: MK17 0BX
LPA: Buckinghamshire Council - Minerals and Waste Planning *
LPA code: E10000002
PINS reference: 3256030

=== FULL INSPECTOR DECISION ===

Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 17 November 2020 by G Sibley MPLAN MRTPI
Decision by Chris Preston BA (Hons) BPl MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 8 January 2021

Appeal Ref: APP/P0430/D/20/3256030
86 Westbrook End, Newton Longville MK17 0BX
•

•
•
•

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 & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England)
Order 2015 (as amended).
The appeal is made by Mr Kevin Dee against the decision of Buckinghamshire Council.
The application Ref: 20/01693/HPDE, dated 27 May 2020, was refused by notice dated
14 July 2020.
The development proposed is the erection of a single storey rear extension, which
would extend beyond the rear wall of the original house by 6m, for which the maximum
height would be 4m, and for which the height of the eaves would be 4m.

Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Appeal Procedure
2. The site visit was undertaken by an Appeal Planning Officer whose
recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard
before deciding the appeal.
Procedural Matter
3. The description of development in the original application form is a descriptive
explanation of the position rather than an identification of the operational
development. In the interest of clarity, I have considered the proposals on the
basis of the description of development taken from the Decision Notice.
Main Issue
•

Whether the development would be permitted development under Schedule 2,
Part 1, Class A of the GPDO.

Reasons
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) to Part 1, 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 (PD).
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Appeal Decision APP/P0430/D/20/3256030

5. Permitted development rights granted through the GPDO are subject to a
number of conditions and limitations, including those set out at paragraph A.4
of Part 1, Class A, of Schedule 2. Paragraph A.4(2) identifies the information
that must be submitted with an application for prior approval in order to make
it valid. The appellant has not questioned the date the application was
validated by the Council, so the inference is that the information required by
subparagraph 2 was provided on the 2nd June.
6. Paragraph A.4(10) states that development must not begin before the
occurrence of a number of the matters. Of those, paragraph A.4(10)(c) states
the development must not begin before the expiry of 42 days following the
date on which the information referred to in paragraph A.4(2) was received by
the LPA without the LPA notifying the developer as to whether prior approval is
given or refused. The expiry of 42 days following the 2nd June is the 14th July.
Provided that the appellant received the decision on the 14th July prior to the
end of the working day (17:30) then the Council notified the appellant within
the statutory period. The exact time the decision was issued was not provided
but based on the available evidence, the decision was issued within the
statutory period. Thus, I am satisfied that the Council’s decision was issued
within the correct timeframe.
7. Under paragraphs A.4(10) (a) and (b) development must not commence until
either the LPA has notified the applicant that prior approval is not required or,
where it is required, giving written notice of their prior approval. In effect those
requirements are pre-conditions and development will not benefit from
permitted development rights if those conditions are not met and work is
commenced before such confirmation has been given. Construction of the
extension, as shown on the submitted plans, has already started and the work
was almost been complete at the time of the site visit. Given that it is a prerequisite that prior approval is granted before work commences, it is not
possible for prior approval to be granted retrospectively through this appeal.
8. It follows not only that prior approval is not deemed to be granted, but also
that prior approval cannot be granted. The appeal could be dismissed simply on
the basis that the development has been commenced. However, I also note
that the Council have refused the application on the basis that the extension
would exceed the limitations to PD set out in paragraph A.1.
9. 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. Because the
development has already taken place it is not possible to confirm the
dimensions of the original dwellinghouse. Based on the attached neighbouring
dwelling the original dwellinghouse would have included the central two storey
element of the house and the two storey rear outrigger but not the single
storey conservatory that was located within the small courtyard formed behind
the rear wall of the dwelling and the side wall of the rear outrigger. The original
dwellinghouse does not include the converted shop that is connected to the
flank wall of the dwelling, as it was only recently granted planning permission
to convert into residential use (Ref:18/03715/APP) and as such it was not part
of house when it was originally built.
10. Where the enlarged part of the extension would extend beyond a wall forming
a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse, a proposal must meet all of the
limitations in A.1(j)(i) to (iii) in order to constitute PD. One of these limitations

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

2

Appeal Decision APP/P0430/D/20/3256030

states that an extension would not be PD where it would extend beyond the
side wall of the original dwellinghouse and would have a greater width than half
the width of the original dwellinghouse. The Technical Guidance1 indicates that
a wall forming a side elevation will be any that cannot be identified as being a
front wall or a rear wall. The side wall of the rear outrigger cannot be identified
as a front or rear wall and therefore, is a side wall. Consequently, the extension
extends beyond the side elevation of the rear outrigger and would have a
greater width than half the width of the original dwellinghouse.
11. The side wall of the rear outrigger, on the ground floor, has been demolished
as part of the works to the dwelling. Nonetheless, the side wall of the outrigger
still counts as part of the original dwellinghouse, even though it has been
demolished.
12. The approved conversion of the neighbouring shop has been subsumed by the
dwelling, with the floor plan (Dwg.no: 942-PL-030) showing an internal door
between the two elements of the building and as such, is an enlargement to
the original dwellinghouse. Subsection (ja) notes that the enlarged part of the
dwellinghouse must be considered together with any existing enlargements
which, in this instance, includes the converted shop. Consequently, if the
conservatory was part of the original dwellinghouse, the enlarged part of the
dwellinghouse, including the converted shop extended beyond a side wall of the
original dwellinghouse and is greater than half the width of the original
dwellinghouse.
13. The combined extensions are single storey and whilst a Juliette balcony has
been installed on the first floor as part of the works, it does not extend far
enough beyond the rear wall of the dwelling to constitute as an enlargement to
the dwellinghouse over more than a single storey. Furthermore, based on the
available information the extensions do not appear to exceed 4 metres in
height. Nevertheless, the development does not comply with the limitations set
out in A.1 (j)(iii) as well as (ja). Consequently, setting aside the issue relating
to the commencement of work and the dispute over whether the Council issued
the decision notice within the correct timeframe, the development does not
constitute permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the
GPDO.
Other Matters
14. Whilst I note appellant was disappointed with the prior approval process and
the advice provided by the Council, I have not been provided with a copy of the
advice that was given and the Council’s decision was based on the limited
requirements of the GPDO and not the planning judgement of the Officer. The
reasons for needing the larger extension cannot be taken into consideration as
part of this process, unlike a full planning application where the Officer could
apply their own judgement to weigh up the benefits of the proposal against any
identified harms.
15. I also note that no objections were received from neighbouring residents in
relation to consultation on the prior approval application. However, the absence
of objections does not have a bearing on whether the development amounts to
permitted development, having regard to the findings above. It is clear that an
application for planning permission would need to be made for the
1

Technical Guidance: Permitted Development for Householders (Published 2017) page 23

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

3

Appeal Decision APP/P0430/D/20/3256030

development. That would be the appropriate forum for considering the planning
merits of the scheme and I make no comment in that regard.
Conclusion and Recommendation
16. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised,
I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

G Sibley
APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER
Inspector’s Decision
17. I have considered all the submitted evidence and the Appeal Planning Officer’s
report, and, on that basis, I agree that the appeal should be dismissed.

Chris Preston
INSPECTOR

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

4