Sleeper Court Pomeroy Street, LONDON, SE14 5FY
London Borough of Lewisham — appeal dismissed
- Outcome
- Dismissed
- Decision date
- 16 February 2023
- Authority
- London Borough of Lewisham
- Inspector
- Bartlett R
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Casework type
- Planning Appeal
- Type detail
- Planning Appeals - Reserved Matters
- Development type
- Minor Dwellings
- Appellant
- Mr J Sleeper
- LPA reference
- DC/22/126996
- ONS LPA code
- E09000023
- Jurisdiction
- Transferred
- Link status
- Not Linked
- Start date
- 20 October 2022
Summary AI
The appeal was dismissed due to the development not meeting the necessary criteria and conditions for permitted development. The proposal would not comply with the conditions, limitations and restrictions applicable to development permitted in Schedule 2, Part 20, Class A of the GPDO, particularly under A.1.(o)(vii).
PDF text
Sleeper Court Pomeroy Street, LONDON, SE14 5FY — London Borough of Lewisham — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 12 December 2022 by R Bartlett PGDip URP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 16 February 2023 Appeal Ref: APP/C5690/W/22/3305815 Sleeper Court, Pomeroy Street, Lewisham, London SE14 5FY • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant approval required under Schedule 2, Part 20, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended). • The appeal is made by Mr J Sleeper against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Lewisham. • The application Ref DC/22/126996, dated 25 May 2022, was refused by notice dated 22 July 2022. • The development proposed is the construction of two additional storeys to provide 3 self-contained duplex flats. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matters 2. The description of development on the application form includes additional details, which I have omitted from the banner heading above in the interests of conciseness. 3.
Sleeper Court Pomeroy Street, LONDON, SE14 5FY — London Borough of Lewisham — Appeal Decision Schedule 2, Part 20, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 as amended (the GPDO), permits development consisting of the construction of up to two additional storeys of new dwellinghouses immediately above the existing topmost residential storey on a building which is a purpose-built, detached block of flats, as well as certain associated works. This is subject to the proposal satisfying the limitations and conditions set out in paragraphs A.1 and A.2. 4. At the point the appeal was submitted, there was no dispute regarding any of the limitations on permitted development in paragraph A.1. However, during the course of the appeal the Council advised that it had come to light that the appeal site is within 3 kilometres of a helipad, and consequently, the development would not be permitted under A.1.(o)(vii) of the GPDO. Both main parties have been given the opportunity to make further comments on this matter. 5.
Sleeper Court Pomeroy Street, LONDON, SE14 5FY — London Borough of Lewisham — Appeal Decision As detailed in the GPDO, and where the relevant criteria are met, development under Class A is permitted subject to the condition that the developer must first apply to the local planning authority for the prior approval of a limited number of specific considerations. These include, amongst other things, the https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
Sleeper Court Pomeroy Street, LONDON, SE14 5FY — London Borough of Lewisham — Appeal Decision As detailed in the GPDO, and where the relevant criteria are met, development under Class A is permitted subject to the condition that the developer must first apply to the local planning authority for the prior approval of a limited number of specific considerations. These include, amongst other things, the https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
Sleeper Court Pomeroy Street, LONDON, SE14 5FY — London Borough of Lewisham — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/C5690/W/22/3305815 external appearance of the building and the impact on the amenity of the existing building and neighbouring premises. Main Issues 6. The main issues are whether the proposal complies with the conditions, limitations and restrictions applicable to development permitted by the GPDO; and if so, the effect of the development on the external appearance of the building and the amenity of neighbouring premises. Reasons 7. The evidence submitted by the Council confirms the definition of an aerodrome for the purposes of the GDPO, and identifies that there are at least two helipads, within 3km of the appeal site, which would fall within this definition. 8. The appellant was given the opportunity to comment on this information and had nothing further to add. 9. I appreciate that this matter was not identified by the Council when making its original decision on this proposal, or indeed when making its decision in relation to a previous prior approval application for the addition of one storey to the appeal building. However, regardless of any decision, development is only permitted by the GPDO, where it meets all of the necessary criteria and conditions. 10.
Sleeper Court Pomeroy Street, LONDON, SE14 5FY — London Borough of Lewisham — Appeal Decision The proposal would not comply with the conditions, limitations and restrictions applicable to development permitted in Schedule 2, Part 20, Class A of the GPDO, particularly under A.1.(o)(vii). Therefore, it is not permitted development and there is no need to consider the prior approval matters. Conclusion 11. For the reasons given above, and having had regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.
Sleeper Court Pomeroy Street, LONDON, SE14 5FY — London Borough of Lewisham — R Bartlett INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2
Main issues and findings
Planning obligations Against appellant ¶4
The development would not be permitted under A.1.(o)(vii) of the GPDO due to the appeal site being within 3 kilometres of a helipad.
Planning obligations Against appellant ¶7
The evidence submitted by the Council confirmed the definition of an aerodrome for the purposes of the GDPO, and identified that there are at least two helipads within 3km of the appeal site.
Planning obligations Against appellant ¶9
The proposal would not comply with the conditions, limitations and restrictions applicable to development permitted in Schedule 2, Part 20, Class A of the GPDO, particularly under A.1.(o)(vii).
Policies relied on
| Reference | Weight |
|---|---|
| A.1.(o)(vii) of the GPDO |
Determinative |
Site constraints from the Casework Database
Source
Decision letter, 2 pages, issued by the Planning Inspectorate on 16 February 2023 under the Open Government Licence.