The inspector reasoned that the development was not permitted by virtue of class B, part 1, schedule 2 of the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO) 1995 because the site lay in a conservation area. Neither would it constitute permitted development by virtue of class C because it would lead to a material alteration in the shape of the dwelling, he opined.
The inspector acknowledged the appellant's argument that erecting a screen was not a building operation and was accordingly not subject to planning control. However, he referred to the tests of size, permanence and physical attachment in determining what is a building identified in Skerrits of Nottingham Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (2002).
He observed that the screen was of significant size, had been erected on the site rather than brought to it, remained permanently in position and was attached to the house. In his view, it had to be regarded as a building operation. He concluded that the works did not benefit from the permitted rights set out in the GPDO and accordingly planning permission was required.
DCS No: 54669726; Inspector: Dennis Bradley; Written representations.