Skip to main content
Official casework recordDismissedCurrent release

Appeal 3276035

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 works

One-off service · No subscription

Similar appeals are evidence to inspect, not a prediction of your outcome.

Official decision document

The decision, section by section

4 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

the demolition of existing conservatory and extension, erection of single storey rear extension.

  1. Section 02

    Decision

    The appeal is dismissed.

  2. Section 03

    Main Issue

    The main issue in this case is whether the extension proposed amounts to permitted development, taking into account the restrictions imposed by Class A of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended).

  3. Section 04

    Reasons

    The appeal relates to a semi-detached two storey dwelling. It has a conservatory and a single storey extension which together, span the full width of the rear of the dwelling.

    The proposal seeks to remove the conservatory and part of the rear extension which would be replaced by a deeper extension. The Application Form states that the extension would be 6 metres deep with a maximum height of 4m and an eaves height of 2.6m.

    The Council asserts that when considered alongside the existing addition, the proposed extension would exceed the limits set out in Class A.1 (h)(i), (i), and (j) of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended).

    Class A of the Regulations relates to the enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse. Class A1 sub-paragraph (h)(i) directs that development is not permitted by Class A if the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would have more than a single storey and extend beyond the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse by more than 3 metres. As the proposal relates to an extension which would not have more than a single storey, this paragraph is not a relevant consideration.

    Sub-paragraph (i) of Class A directs that development is not permitted if the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would be within 2 metres of the boundary of the curtilage of the dwellinghouse, and the height of the eaves of the enlarged part would exceed 3 metres.

    Sub-paragraph (ja) of Class A states that development is not permitted if any total enlargement (being the enlarged part together with any existing enlargement of the original dwellinghouse to which it will be joined) exceeds or would exceed the limits set out in sub-paragraphs (e) to (j). In other words, if the extension falls within the limitations of (i) but it is being joined to a previous enlargement which exceeds these limitations (whether built following a planning application or under permitted development rights), it will not be permitted development.

    The proposed extension would be within 2 metres of the boundary of the curtilage of the dwellinghouse and it would be attached to a previous enlargement with an eaves height that is greater than 3 metres according to the plan included within the appellant’s Statement (page 11). On this basis, the proposed extension is not permitted development.

    I am mindful that the appellant has referred to development plan policy and has also highlighted examples of a number of residential extensions. However, my decision is based purely on the details of the application before me taking into account the Regulations referred to above.

    Accordingly, the appeal does not succeed.

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 831No official casework-database value to compare
    Extracted decision date · page 1
    22 September 2021Matches the official casework database
    Extracted site visit dates
    8 September 2021 (page 1)

Reference and authority

Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.

Case reference
3276035
Application reference
21/P0889
Lead case reference
Not recorded
Planning authority
London Borough of Merton
Planning authority code
E09000024

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
Unknown
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
Not recorded
Number of residences
1
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
28 May 2021
Valid date
28 May 2021
Start date
10 August 2021
Planning authority decision date
13 April 2021
Appeal decision date
22 September 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
Not recorded
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
3605
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