Appeal 3345549
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
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
single storey rear extension, 8m deep.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Applications for costs
An application for costs was made by [name] against Mole Valley District Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision.
Section 04
Preliminary Matters
A certificate of lawfulness has been issued for a single storey side extension1 (PD side extension). A decision was also issued that prior approval was not required for a rear extension which would extend for the majority of the width of the two storey part of the house and would be 8m deep2 ([name] rear extension). At the time of the application and my site visit these extensions had not been built.
Section 05
Main Issue
This appeal relates to an application for prior approval. However, there is dispute between the main parties as to whether the development would be permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (GPDO) subject to compliance with all relevant limitations and conditions.
Therefore, the main issue is whether the proposed development would be permitted by Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO.
Section 06
Reasons
The appellant is clear that the application that is the subject of this appeal proposes an extension to the rear of the property that is proposed to be attached to the PD side extension. 1 LPA ref: MO/2024/0434 2 LPA ref: MO/2023/0173
Although the PD side extension has a certificate of lawfulness, it has not been built. As such, at the time of this decision, it cannot be extended. Consequently, the appeal scheme proposes a structure which is not attached to any part of the existing building, notwithstanding whether or not that part of the building is original.
Class A covers the enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse, and the Permitted development rights for householders: technical guidance (2019) (technical guidance) provides further clarity that this covers works such as rear or side extensions. The proposed development is not attached to any existing part of the dwelling, therefore in the circumstances of this case it would not fall to be considered under Class A. Nor is there evidence that it would be permitted development under any other class.
There is nothing before me that gives sufficient assurances that these works would take place in the manner and order suggested. Moreover, this appeal must be determined with regard to the circumstances at the date of the appeal decision, not a possible future scenario where the side extension has been constructed.
Therefore, for the reasons set out above, the proposed development would not be permitted by Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO.
Section 07
Other Matters
The scheme under consideration was not for the combined PD side extension and appeal scheme. Therefore, I have not assessed such a scheme against the requirements of the GPDO or the technical guidance.
For the reasons set out above the appeal scheme is not permitted development. Therefore, it is unnecessary to proceed to consider the prior approval matters.
Section 08
Conclusion
For the reasons given above 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.
Costs Decision
- Extracted inspector · page 1
- Inspector attribution ID 357No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 10 January 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 18 December 2024 (page 1)
Appeal Decision
- Extracted inspector · page 1
- Inspector attribution ID 357No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 10 January 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 18 December 2024 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3345549
- Application reference
- MO/2024/0450/PNHH
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Mole Valley District Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000210
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
- 46 m²
- Number of residences
- 0
- Site in Green Belt
- Yes
- 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
- 3 June 2024
- Valid date
- 3 June 2024
- Start date
- 11 July 2024
- Planning authority decision date
- 29 April 2024
- Appeal decision date
- 10 January 2025
Case administration
Published recovery, call-in, costs and enforcement information for this case.
- Redetermined
- No
- Bespoke
- Yes
- Date recovered
- Not recorded
- Date not recovered or derecovered
- Not recorded
- Call-in date
- Not recorded
- Costs applied for
- Yes
- 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
- 62690
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:28
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21