Readers dealing with domestic extensions will be aware that Condition A.3(a) of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO requires the materials used in any exterior work to be of a similar appearance to those used in the construction of the exterior of the existing dwellinghouse. The Technical Guidance for Householders offers guidance on what this ought to mean in practice but to some extent the meaning of ‘similar appearance’ must be drawn from precedent. On this basis, a recent appeal case in southwest London (DCS Number 400-014-332) is of interest.
The inspector noted that the Technical Guidance states that the condition is ‘intended to ensure that any works to enlarge, alter or improve a house result in an appearance that minimises visual impact and is sympathetic to existing development. This means that the materials used should be of similar visual appearance to those in the existing house, but does not mean that they need to be the same materials. For example the external walls of an extension should be constructed of materials that provide a similar visual appearance – for example in terms of colour and style of brick used – to the materials used in existing house walls.’
The council contended that the extension which had been added to the rear of the terrace house was not permitted development because the materials did not have a similar appearance to those of the exterior of the existing dwellinghouse. The inspector acknowledged that the extension was rendered whereas the rear elevation was yellow brick. Indeed, she acknowledged that there was no render at the rear on any of the rest of the terrace. She pointed out, however, that the first floor of the front of the house was rendered.
The inspector reasoned that there is no mention in the GPDO of matching materials being limited to those on the elevation to which an extension is to be attached. Consequently, she found that the extension did meet the wording of condition A.3(a) when given its literal interpretation. She issued a certificate of lawfulness accordingly.
Do readers have any thoughts on this?
The following DCP section is relevant: 4.3421
In Defending the sustainability test for barn conversions the Blog highlighted the illogicality of there being different sustainability criteria for barn conversion proposals according to whether they require prior approval or planning permission. In a recent case in Sussex (DCS Number 400-014-208) the appellant succeeded in using the fallback of a prior approval for residential conversion of a barn as a lever to gain planning permission for replacement with a new dwelling, and in so doing showed just how pointless this difference in treatment is.
The inspector recorded that the barn was a utilitarian steel-portal structure with walls and roof of corrugated sheeting. As such he considered that it was of no particular architectural merit save for being consistent aesthetically with functional agricultural buildings.
He noted that prior approval had been granted for the change of use of the barn to a dwelling in 2015. The proposal before him involved the demolition of the barn and the erection of a differently designed dwelling in place of that permitted via the 2015 permission.
In relation to suitability of location he identified the central difference between the development proposed and that permitted as essentially being confined to the provision of one additional bedroom. In his view the effect of this change in respect of the intensity of domestic use and consequently use of private vehicles was likely to be highly limited. Indeed, he remarked, works that affect only the interior of a building are not development, and as such there was nothing before him to indicate that a third bedroom within the permitted dwelling could not have been created without the need for express planning consent, in any event.
The inspector acknowledged that the overall form of the proposed dwelling was more intricate, and thus to some extent more domestic in appearance than the permitted scheme, which made use of the existing understated barn structure. However, he observed that there were a number of dwellings within the immediate environs of the appeal site and as such held that the proposal would not appear incongruous in this context.
The inspector concluded that the proposal before him would result in no significant effects in relation to the suitability of the location for residential development compared with the scheme permitted via the 2015 permission.
This all tells us that the current prior approval system for barn conversions leaves the door wide open for gaining planning permission for demolition and residential redevelopment via a two-stage process.
The following DCP section is relevant: 10.1361
Taken from a recent appeal decision (DCS Number 400-014-301):
“At paragraph 10 of the Council’s appeal statement it refers to the “Gelding judgement” [sic]; this has not been queried by the Appellant. However I anticipate that the Council does not wish me to form a sensible opinion about a castrated male horse, but that it is in fact referring to the case of Timmins & Anor v Gedling Borough Council  EWHC 654 (Admin) [my emphasis].”
Judging whether a Class E outbuilding ought to be considered ‘incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling’ is not always easy, so readers might wish to note an appeal case in which the inspector sets out the considerations which should be taken into account (DCS Number 400-014-199).
The inspector explained:
“It is necessary to consider proposals in the particular context within which they would be situated; an outbuilding that may be considered incidental to the enjoyment of a substantial dwelling with many occupants and large grounds may not be incidental if situated in the garden of a small cottage with a single occupant. Size alone is not necessarily a determining factor and a wide range of outbuildings, for different purposes may be permitted under Class E, depending on the specific circumstances. Those principles have been established through the Courts, including the cases of Emin and Wallington. The Courts have also established that the term ‘required’ should be interpreted as meaning ‘reasonably required’.“
The case before the inspector concerned the refusal of a certificate of lawful development for the construction of two detached outbuildings within the curtilage of a property in Hertfordshire. He noted that the appellant and his wife would be the only permanent occupants, remarking that the sheer scale of the facilities would appear to be way in excess of what could be considered reasonably required as an incidental use for a dwelling that would be occupied by two people. He observed “The indoor bowling green would equate to the provision of a full sized bowling rink per occupant. Similarly, the size of the indoor cinema ….could not reasonably be said to be for a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of a dwellinghouse that is occupied by two people.”
The inspector further explained that with regard to Class E, the Technical Guidance states that a purpose incidental to a house would not cover normal residential uses, such as separate self-contained accommodation nor the use of an outbuilding for primary living accommodation such as a bedroom, bathroom, or kitchen. In other words, if the use of a space was fundamental to the ordinary day-to-day functioning of the dwelling it would not be incidental but part of the primary accommodation. The appellant’s suggestion that the large viewing screen in the cinema room would be used in the evenings almost every day for the purpose of watching films and television, as an alternative to watching a smaller television in the lounge, indicated to the inspector that the cinema room would, in effect, be used as an extension to the primary accommodation, very much like an additional lounge, as opposed to an incidental use. As such, it would fall outside the scope of permitted development rights granted through Class E, he determined.
The following DCP section is relevant: 4.3421
Those with an interest in the retail sector will know that development plan policy generally seeks to ensure that the vitality and viability of district centres is protected and that it is not undermined by changes of use from retail use. The loss of a retail unit in a north Wales shopping centre has been allowed by an inspector, however, after he decided that conversion of the former newsagent’s with attached dwelling to three dwellings would be preferable to long-term vacancy (DCS Number 400-014-214).
The inspector reasoned that the existing retail unit was exceptionally modest in size and that its loss would not harm the overall quantum of retail floorspace within the centre as a whole. He also found that the quantity of vacant units in the district shopping centre materially harmed its vitality and viability. He further reasoned that replacing a vacant building with three dwellings would assist in supporting the vitality and viability of nearby commercial premises. He concluded that the proposal would accord with the objective of development plan policy.
We have noticed, here on the Blog, that when an inspector concludes, not that a proposal accords with policy, but that it accords with the objective of policy, the decision is likely to be worth a closer look. We are not convinced that this one bears scrutiny but what do readers think?
The following DCP section is relevant: 13.732
Prior approval for the conversion of two floors of a warehouse in Sussex to nine flats has been turned down at appeal, an inspector finding that the size of the building would exceed the 500 sqm floor space limitation set out in Schedule 2, Part 3, Class P of the GPDO (DCS Number 400-014-157). Whilst the inspector found that external walls must be included in calculations of floor space under this class there appears, nonetheless, to be an unresolved question arising from the absence of reference to cumulative maximum floor space figures.
The appellants gave the total floor space of the building as 489 sqm, based on estimating the internal floor area from scaled layout drawings excluding the external walls. The inspector found it notable that Class P is the only class in Part 3 which refers to ‘gross floor space’ rather than simply ‘floor space’. She recorded, however, that ‘gross floor space’ is not defined. To her mind the use of the word ‘gross’ suggested that the walls should be included in any measurements of the building, particularly in the absence of any reference to cumulative floor space which appears in connection with other classes of development. If this approach were adopted there would be no doubt that the gross floor space figure would significantly exceed the 500 sqm threshold, she concluded.
The appellants were not giving up without a fight, however, and suggested that, in the absence of reference to cumulative maximum floor space figures under Class P, prior approval for the change of use could be sought under two separate applications, one for each floor. This would ensure that the floor space limit would not be exceeded on either floor. “Whilst that may or may not be the case” said the inspector, “the proposal would have to be a significantly different layout to the appeal scheme”. No sooner said than drafted, we suspect.
The following DCP section is relevant: 4.3423
Taken from a recent appeal decision in which the council is defending a claim for costs (DCS Number: 200-006-036):
“….the first time the Council was put on notice about this was on the Monday before the Inquiry opened when it received Mr Harwood’s skeleton.”
Hopefully, this was a one-off, since we hold the Planning Inspectorate in the highest regard, but just in case it wasn’t readers might wish to be alerted to this apology from an inspector under Preliminary Matters in a recent appeal (DCS Number 200-006-021) in order to make the appropriate checks.
‘At the Inquiry it emerged that a number of local residents had made written representations direct to The Planning Inspectorate [PINS] but that these had not been circulated to either main party and had not been placed before me. On behalf of PINS I apologised for this inaction and I formally do so again now. I have asked my colleagues to instigate an investigation so that lessons can be learnt to avoid such a situation reoccurring.’
The following DCP section is relevant: 5.34
We thought this snippet was interesting for the considerable (unprecedented?) emphasis placed on the importance of urban grain. The case (DCS Number 400-014-146) concerns an appeal against the refusal of listed building consent to create an off-road parking area at a grade II listed former mill worker’s cottage in an area designated as a World Heritage Site.
The inspector noted that the mill workers’ cottages, dating from the late 18th century, were important assets due to their connection with a noted local family and the unique role which the area played in the development of the textile industry and the early factory system. He considered that, even though it was proposed to build a replacement wall further into the site, the loss of the frontage wall to facilitate off-road parking would erode the well-preserved character of the cottages, not only by the introduction of a hard standing but also by the physical loss of the boundary wall to the listed property in its original position. Furthermore, he noted that the World Heritage Partnership had stated that the walls, as curtilage features, had a significance equal to that of the cottages themselves, and that the loss of part of the historic boundary pattern would be harmful to the Outstanding Universal Value of the WHS.
The following DCP section is relevant: 4.372
After his recent unfortunate brushes with the cycling community the secretary of state for transport might be interested in a planning inspector’s view that a cycle is a vehicle (DCS Number 400-013-998).
Readers might be aware that towards the end of last year footage emerged of Mr Grayling opening the door of his ministerial car directly in front of a cyclist. After dusting himself off the cyclist appeared relatively unscathed but the minister was nonetheless criticised for his failure to exchange details. We all make mistakes, even transport ministers who might be expected to have some knowledge of highways law, but he did not improve matters by commenting in an interview with the London Evening Standard not long afterwards that cycle lanes can cause problems for road users. ‘We are road users!’ screamed the cyclists.
In (DCS Number 400-013-998) the inspector had to decide whether a proposed fence would be adjacent to a highway used by vehicular traffic. A ‘Redway’ ran alongside the boundary of the property, she noted, the term ‘Redway’, being a term applied to a network of shared use paths in Milton Keynes generally surfaced with red tarmac, and dedicated as cycleways open to public use by means of pedal cycles or on foot only. The inspector recorded that ‘No definition of ‘vehicular traffic’ exists either within the GPDO, the 1990 Act or the Highways Act 1980. In the Road Traffic Act 1988, a “cycle” is interpreted to mean a bicycle, a tricycle, or a cycle having four or more wheels, not being in any case a motor vehicle (section 192).’ Yet, she reasoned, there is nothing to suggest that for the purposes of the GPDO, the term ‘vehicular traffic’ is confined to motorised vehicles. Although a ‘vehicle’ will often have an engine, she noted that an ordinary definition of the word does not exclude other forms of vehicle and she found no reason to suppose it should be interpreted so restrictively when applying the GPDO. From the viewpoint that a cycle is a mode of transport which provides a means for the rider to travel, it seemed to her that it is a vehicle. Use of the Redway by cyclists would thus amount to use by vehicular traffic.
The following DCP section is relevant: 4.3422