Skip to main content
Rules for YouPlanning, made clearerMenu
Official casework recordDismissedCurrent release

Appeal 3329182

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

8 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 a single storey rear extension and internal alterations.

  1. Section 02

    Decision

    The appeal is dismissed.

  2. Section 03

    Appeal Procedure

    The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

  3. Section 04

    Preliminary Matters and Main Issue

    Planning permission is granted under the above mentioned legislation for the enlargement of a dwellinghouse subject to limitations and conditions. [name].4(3) provides that the application may be refused where the proposed development does not comply therewith. Development is not permitted if, amongst other things, the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse and would have a width greater than half the width of the original. This forms the main issue of the appeal, in the context of the permissible size limits set out by Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A.1.

  4. Section 05

    Reasons for the Recommendation

    A small but distinct projection is located at the rear of the appeal building, shown on the plans as a utility room. It is of matching materials and design to the host and a similar feature is on an adjoining dwelling. More likely than not, it forms part of the original dwelling rather than being a later addition. The proposal would replace this rear projection, extending across almost the entirety of the rear elevation of the host dwelling.

    The Permitted Development Rights for Householders: Technical Guidance 2019 clarifies that a wall forming a side elevation will be any wall that cannot be identified as being a front wall or a rear wall. Houses will often have more than two side elevation walls, as illustrated on an accompanying image of the guidance.

    The projection of the utility room to the rear creates a side elevation that the scheme would extend beyond for the purposes of the legislation. The limitations to permitted development are based on the original dwellinghouse and apply even if part of the original wall is to be removed. The proposed development would extend beyond a wall forming the side elevation of the rear projection and have a width greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse. Therefore, the proposal would fail to comply with [name].1.(j)(iii). As such, the proposals would not satisfy the criteria to be permitted development, as defined by the above part and class.

  5. Section 06

    [name]

    The appeal scheme seeks prior approval for an extension under the permitted development regime. It requires compliance with explicit criteria with which, as set out above, the appeal scheme would not comply. My conclusions do not therefore change in light of the other examples of extensions cited elsewhere.

  6. Section 07

    Conclusion and Recommendation

    For the reasons given above, the appeal scheme would not satisfy the explicit limitations and exceptions of the above mentioned legislative provisions. The appeal should therefore be dismissed.

  7. Section 08

    Inspector’s Decision

    I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and, on that basis, I dismiss the appeal.

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 1895No official casework-database value to compare
    Extracted decision date · page 1
    24 April 2024Matches the official casework database
    Extracted site visit dates
    7 March 2024 (page 1)

Reference and authority

Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.

Case reference
3329182
Application reference
DC/23/131460
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
Not recorded
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
8 September 2023
Valid date
30 November 2023
Start date
17 January 2024
Planning authority decision date
21 June 2023
Appeal decision date
24 April 2024

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
49998
First seen
20 August 2026 at 14:24
Last seen
20 August 2026 at 16:27
Removed from release
Not recorded
Record created
20 August 2026 at 14:24
Record updated
24 August 2026 at 16:21
Back to appeals databaseRequest a correction or privacy review