Here is another appeal example relating to an aspect of the GPDO which we commented on in 2017, in A lose-lose situation. There are still no winners.
This case relates to an appeal against the refusal of a lawful development certificate for a single storey extension to a house in an Oxfordshire village (DCS Number 400-028-293). The site was in both a conservation area and the North Wessex Downs area of outstanding natural beauty.
The inspector recorded that Article 3 and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO grant planning permission for the enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse. This ‘permitted development right’, he explained, is subject to limitations and conditions. Paragraph A.2 sets out the limitations in respect of Article 2(3) land, which includes AONBs and conservation areas, and Paragraph A.2(a) states that development is not permitted if ‘it would consist of or include the cladding of any part of the exterior of the dwellinghouse with stone, artificial stone, pebble dash, render, timber, plastic or tiles’.
The inspector found that, as the dwellinghouse was already clad in render and the extension was proposed to be rendered in order to comply with the matching materials condition under paragraph A.3(a), the extension would not be permitted development because it would conflict with the limitation of paragraph A.2(a).
The appellant contended that the restriction was intended to apply to any cladding of the existing dwellinghouse and not a permitted extension because, otherwise, it would mean that no extension of a dwellinghouse on Article 2(3) land would fall within permitted development rights and that this clearly was not the intention or the spirit of the GPDO. Paragraph A.2(a) clearly states otherwise, the inspector returned. He also pointed out that clarification is provided by the Government’s Technical Guidance , which states that ‘the cladding of any part of a house, whether it be the original house or any enlarged part is not permitted development and requires an application for planning permission’.
The inspector remarked “This is not a ‘Catch 22’ situation or a case of one limitation or condition overriding another; both must be met. Whether or not this is reasonable, is not a matter for this appeal.”
Section 4.3421 of DCP Online concerns GPDO development within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse.