With all its faults

In denying prior approval for a proposed six-metre rear extension to a terrace house in north London an inspector has ruled that we must accept the foibles of the GPDO (DCS Number 400-034-877). 

The inspector concluded that the proposal would represent an enlargement of the dwelling house which would extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwelling house and which would have a width greater than half the width of the original dwelling house. The proposal would therefore not accord with paragraph A.1.(j)(iii) of the GDPO and would not be permitted development, he determined. 

The appellant protested that the practical application of the guidance was a wasteful process to achieve a full width six-metre extension, reasoning that two half-width extensions could be developed, leaving a gap between the two elements which would then require planning permission to infill. 

The inspector acknowledged the technicalities and foibles of the GPDO, but explained that it is nonetheless a consistent procedure whereby development is either permitted by it, or as in the case before him, not permitted by it. He commented, moreover, that whether the appellant considered the Technical Guidance, or indeed the GDPO, to be flawed and wastes a local planning authority’s resources, it is nonetheless the procedure by which permitted development is tested. 

We just have to learn to live with it, really…..

The permitted development classes are set out at section 4.342 of DCP Online.