Appeal 3264677
Public case and site metadata stored from the official casework database, including fields that were empty in the source release.
A clearer next step
See how Inspectors approached issues like yours
Bring your planning decision into a private workspace. We separate the disputed points, then match them with source-located Inspector reasoning from similar appeals.
- See which issues the decision appears to turn on
- Compare the facts and open the full appeal records
One private comparison
How the refusal review worksOne-off service · No subscription
Similar appeals are evidence to inspect, not a prediction of your outcome.
Official decision document
The decision, section by section
5 sections
Read the development description and the Inspector’s text from the official decision PDF in source order. Source headings are retained where available. Personal and contact details are removed by an automated privacy filter; this is source material, not Rules for You analysis.
Section 01
Development description
described as “proposed single storey 5m rear extension”.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is whether the proposed development would comply with the conditions, limitations or restrictions applicable to development permitted, having regard to Class A of Schedule 2, Part 1 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the GPDO).
Section 04
Reasons
Class A of Schedule 2, Part 1 of the GPDO states that the enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse is permitted development. [name].1 sets out the relevant exceptions and limitations of the permitted development rights.
[name].1 (j) states that development is not permitted by Class A if the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse, and would exceed 4 metres in height, have more than a single storey, or have a width greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse. It is this last point regarding the width which is the matter in dispute.
The proposed extension would extend beyond a wall forming the side elevation. This side elevation on the appeal property is within close proximity to the sites boundary with [address] (No 55). The infill section of the proposal would be formed between this side elevation and the boundary with No 55. This part of the extension would be less than half the width of the original dwellinghouse.
The rearmost part of the extension, which would extend beyond the side elevation of the appeal property, would have a width that is almost equal to the width of the original dwellinghouse. This rearmost part of the extension would therefore have a greater width than half the width of the original dwellinghouse. The proposal would fail to meet the criteria in paragraph A.1(j) of the GPDO and the proposed extension can therefore not be classed as permitted development.
The appellant has indicated that the proposal would not extend more than 6 metres from the rear of the original dwellinghouse and would be in accordance with paragraph A.1(g) of the permitted development rights for householders technical guidance. This matter does not alter my findings above with regards to paragraph A.1(j).
I have had regard to the appellants statement of case including reference to other extensions1 which have been granted by the Council or by planning appeal. Insufficient details have been submitted on these schemes and I cannot be certain that they represent a direct parallel with the appeal scheme particularly with reference to the scale and dimensions of the extensions. Nevertheless, I have determined this appeal on its own merits.
Section 05
Conclusion
I therefore conclude, for the reasons given above, that the appeal should be dismissed.
Planning inspector and document dates
The official casework attribution is grouped under a one-way keyed hash and shown only by its local identifier. Decision-letter dates and page references are extracted by fixed first-page rules and checked against that authoritative record.
Appeal Decision
- Extracted inspector · page 1
- Inspector attribution ID 173No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 29 July 2021Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 19 July 2021 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3264677
- Application reference
- DC/20/118897
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- London Borough of Lewisham
- Planning authority code
- E09000023
Casework details
The casework, procedure, development and linking details supplied by the official record.
- Casework type
- Householder (HAS)
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development type
- Householder developments
- Appeal type reason
- 3. Refused prior approval of permitted development rights
- Appeal reason
- Refusal
- Type detail
- Planning Appeals - Full
- Jurisdiction
- Transferred
- Link status
- Not Linked
Site and development
Published appeal-site measurements and planning designations, without the withheld precise location fields.
- Site area
- Not recorded
- Floor space
- 10 m²
- Number of residences
- 0
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- No
- Affects setting of a listed building
- Not recorded
- Historic building grant made
- Not recorded
- Relates to a conservation area
- Not recorded
- Flooding is an issue
- Not recorded
- Site within an AONB
- Not recorded
- Site within an SSSI
- Not recorded
Decision and dates
The published outcome and every imported case date.
- Official decision
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 8 December 2020
- Valid date
- 8 December 2020
- Start date
- 19 January 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 4 December 2020
- Appeal decision date
- 29 July 2021
Case administration
Published recovery, call-in, costs and enforcement information for this case.
- Redetermined
- No
- Bespoke
- No
- Date recovered
- Not recorded
- Date not recovered or derecovered
- Not recorded
- Call-in date
- Not recorded
- Costs applied for
- No
- Enforcement grounds count
- Not recorded
- Enforcement grounds
- Not recorded
Source and catalogue history
When this record appeared in the rolling official release and when the catalogue stored it.
- Source
- Planning Inspectorate casework database
- Source data system
- Horizon
- Dataset status
- Current release
- Catalogue record ID
- 1237
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:25
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21