Appeal 3284577
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
7 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
for a single storey rear extension to dwellinghouse.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Preliminary Matters
Under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO), planning permission is granted for the enlargement of a dwellinghouse subject to limitations and conditions.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is whether the proposed development would constitute permitted development under the terms of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A.1 (g) of the GDPO.
Section 05
Reasons
The Council state that the proposed enlarged part of the dwelling would extend beyond the rear wall by more than 6m. Both the application form and the submitted plans indicate 6m deep extensions, though the proposed extensions are angled to follow the line of the rear garden boundaries.
It is this angled form which results in a straight-line distance (not angled) from the rear wall of the office/study to the furthest extent of the proposed extension of greater than 6m. Whilst the submitted plan shows angled lines of 6m to follow the side elevation boundaries of the proposed extensions, the permitted development criteria does not allow for this, with it simply stating that it is permitted to extend beyond the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse by more than 8 metres in the case of a detached dwellinghouse, or 6 metres in the case of any other dwellinghouse. This is a terraced house and there would be a distance of over 6m from an original rear elevation to the end of part of the proposed extensions.
Further to the above, the angled extension proposed from the rear of the dwelling means that it would also project out from the line of the original side of the dwelling. Under Class A, paragraph J of the GPDO states that if the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse it would have to have a width not greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse. The proposed extension spans much of the width of the dwelling (over half) and so does not comply with this criterion.
On the basis of the evidence before me and my observations at the site visit, the proposed development would not satisfy the criteria to be permitted development, under the terms of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A.1 of the GPDO.
Section 06
Other Matters
[name] do not conclude that the proposal would be permitted development, it is not necessary to consider the effect it would have on the amenity of the neighbouring occupiers in this case.
To note, this conclusion does not infer any opinion on the outcome of any future planning application that the appellant may now want to submit for the extension as proposed, now I have resolved that it is not permitted development.
Section 07
Conclusion
For the reasons given above I conclude 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 223No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 3 May 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 12 April 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3284577
- Application reference
- 21/2166
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- London Borough of Brent
- Planning authority code
- E09000005
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
- 1. The decision of the LPA refusing/refusing in part to grant a certificate of lawful use or development
- 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
- 29 m²
- Number of residences
- 0
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- Not recorded
- 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
- 10 October 2021
- Valid date
- 10 November 2021
- Start date
- 1 March 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 19 July 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 3 May 2022
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
- 14591
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:26
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21