The appellant contended that the existing structure was a residential extension that benefitted from permitted development rights under Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the 1995 GPDO as, although they stated it was unfinished, it had been commenced prior to the 2015 GPDO (which removed the potential for such large front extensions). The inspector agreed that the structure could be considered under the 1995 GPDO but ultimately determined that it did not fall within the scope of what constituted permitted development under that Order for three reasons.
Firstly, the inspector considered the structure was not an "extension" to the dwelling at all because it did not have the appearance or function of a domestic extension but rather looked and functioned like an agricultural barn, being timber-framed with plywood cladding only, having no windows and being internally separated into eight blockwork bays. Secondly, he considered that part of the structure was situated on land that fell outside the residential curtilage of the dwelling in an orchard area as evidenced by historic maps of the site. Thirdly, the inspector held that the structure’s painted plywood finish did not comply with condition A3 (a) of Class A to the 1995 GPDO in relation to the external materials used in that they were not "similar in appearance" to the stone and render farmhouse to which it was attached. The inspector concluded the structure was unlawful development and to remedy the breach it needed to be completely demolished within the required six-month period.
Inspector: Chris Preston; Written representations