The appellants had submitted an application for a single-storey side and rear extension. During its consideration, amended plans were submitted from which the side extension had been deleted. The description of development on the subsequent approval notice still referred to the side extension, although an informative indicated that it related to the revised drawings.
The appellants argued that the description of development was decisive. The inspector accepted that the informative was not part of the legal decision notice and that there was merit in the appellants' argument. However, he found the High Court ruling in Barnett v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and East Hampshire District Council  relevant to the situation.
The court held that a full permission for building operations differed from outline consent because on its face it did not purport to be a complete and self-contained description of the development that had been permitted. It was incomplete without approved plans showing the detail of what had been permitted, the judge reasoned. This view was upheld in the Court of Appeal this year.
From this, it seemed to the inspector that reliance on the approval notice alone was insufficient to ascertain what permission had actually been granted for. The approved plans were also a key component, he ruled. Turning to the merits of the proposal, he decided that the extension constituted an intrusive feature in the street scene.
DCS Number 100-064-242
Inspector David Brier; Written representations