“16. It is a requirement of condition (2) of GPDO paragraph A.4 that relevant information contained in the prior approval application is provided to the local planning authority before beginning development. Prior approval cannot be granted in respect of works that have already commenced..... 17. For the reasons set out above, and irrespective of my finding in respect of the Council’s failure to notify the appellant as is required by condition (10) of paragraph A.4, I consider that the application does not comply with condition (2) of paragraph A.4 of Class A, Part 1, Schedule 2 of the GPDO. The proposal does not therefore amount to permitted development. This is not a matter that can be remedied though the appeal process and, as such, the question of whether, on its merits, prior approval should be given for the proposal does not arise. I therefore conclude that the appeal must be dismissed.”
“(1) Planning permission granted by a development order may be granted either unconditionally or subject to such conditions or limitations as may be specified in the order. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), where planning permission is granted by a development order for the erection, extension or alteration of any buildings, the order may require the approval of the local planning authority to be obtained with respect to the design or external appearance of the buildings. (2B) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), a development order may include provision for ensuring- (a) that, before a person in reliance on planning permission granted by the order carries out development of land in England that is a dwelling house or is within the curtilage of a dwelling house- (i) a written description, and a plan, of the proposed development are given to the local planning authority, (ii) notice of the proposed development, and of the period during which representations about it may be made to the local planning authority, is served by the local planning authority on the owner or occupier of any adjoining premises, and (iii) that period has ended, and (b) that, where within that period an owner or occupier of any adjoining premises objects to the proposed development, it may be carried out in reliance on the permission only if the local planning authority consider that it would not have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of adjoining premises.” (a) that, before a person in reliance on planning permission granted by the order carries out development of land in England that is a dwelling house or is within the curtilage of a dwelling house- (i) a written description, and a plan, of the proposed development are given to the local planning authority, (ii) notice of the proposed development, and of the period during which representations about it may be made to the local planning authority, is served by the local planning authority on the owner or occupier of any adjoining premises, and (iii) that period has ended, and (b) that, where within that period an owner or occupier of any adjoining premises objects to the proposed development, it may be carried out in reliance on the permission only if the local planning authority consider that it would not have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of adjoining premises.”
“(1) Subject to the provisions of this Order….., planning permission is hereby granted for the classes of development described as permitted development in Schedule 2 . (2) Any permission granted by paragraph (1) is subject to any relevant exception, limitation or condition specified in Schedule 2 .”
“11. The appellant states that the works involve the replacement of retaining walls and the laying of a patio, together with steps and a slope to the garden. She advises that the retaining wall had been damaged when an extension was constructed next door (at no. 136) and the front of the retaining wall facing the garden, which is at a lower level than the dwelling, was ‘perished’. She adds that the existing steps were considered to be dangerous. 12. These matters are disputed by the Council, which has submitted notes from a site visit made by a Building Control officer on29 January 2015 . These state that a rear extension was being constructed and that the officer was informed by the ‘builder’ that such work was being undertaken under permitted development rights. The officer subsequently consulted with Planning staff and then advised that work should stop until relevant approvals had been sought. 13. The appellant does not accept the Council’s record of that site visit: she says that the person to whom the Council officer spoke (who was her partner not the builder) advised at the time that the works related to reinstating the retaining walls and a set of steps and a ramp for her disabled father.”
“14....My assessment is as follows. The photograph that accompanies the Council’s site visit notes shows that the existing patio had been substantially removed and new concrete foundations were being put in place in the vicinity of no. 136. At the time of my visit, new brick walls had been erected on three sides of the structure. The side walls had been built up to a height just below the apparent floor level of the main dwelling while the wall facing towards the garden was somewhat lower. The work appeared unfinished and there was no evidence of new steps or a ramp having been constructed. 15. The removal of the main patio structure and the erection of new walls on three sides seem to me to markedly exceed the work that would be needed to remedy the damage that the appellant has described. For example, a new wall has been built on the side of the structure that is furthest away from no. 136. The works are however consistent with the Council’s view that the erection of a rear extension had commenced. Applying the balance of probability, it seems to me that these works are likely to relate to the development that is the subject of the present appeal.”