The High Court in London has ruled against three homeowners who sought to use permitted development rules to add a storey to their homes.
The judge said the case raised important issues about the true interpretation of Class AA of Part 1 of the rules, which refers to the enlargement of single dwellinghouses by upwards addition of up to two stories.
Permitted development rules allow landowners to make specified improvements to their properties without needing to apply for planning permission.
That does not, however, mean that no permission at all is needed. Some permitted development rights require the landowner to ask the local planning authority for “prior approval” of a specific proposal. It is not the same as planning permission, and once prior approval is given, the changes can be made.
In a trial late last year, the cases of three landowners who had been refused prior approval of their projects were examined by High Court judge Mr Justice Holgate.
In each case, the landowners had made a more limited interpretation of the specific rules rules relating to their type of permitted development than the local planning authority.
In a ruling handed down this week, Holgate J gave his interpretation of the rules:
“Where an application is made for prior approval under Class AA of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the GPDO 2015, the scale of the development proposed can be controlled within the ambit of paragraph AA.2(3)(a)…
“‘Impact on amenity’ is not limited to overlooking, privacy or loss of light. It means what it says. The phrase ‘adjoining premises’ in that paragraph includes neighbouring premises and is not limited to premises contiguous with the subject property…
“’External appearance’ of the dwellinghouse is not limited to its principal elevation and any side elevation fronting a highway, or to the design and architectural features of those elevations. Instead, the prior approval controls for Class AA of Part 1 include the ‘external appearance’ of the dwellinghouse. The control of the external appearance of the dwelling house is not limited to impact on the subject property itself, but also includes impact on neighbouring premises and the locality.”
On all of these issues he backed the local planning authorities’ planning inspectors.
CAV Housing Ltd v (1) Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, (2) London Borough of Broxbourne
Beis Noeh Ltd v (1) Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, (2) London Borough of Haringey
Mati Rotenberg v (1) Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, (2) London Borough of Haringey
Planning Court (Holgate J) 3 Feb 2022
To send feedback, e-mail newsdesk@eg.co.uk or tweet @EGPropertyNews
