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

Appeal 3359344

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

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 rear extension measuring 4.5m long, and 3.5m high with eaves height at a maximum 3m’.

  1. Section 02

    Decision

    The appeal is dismissed.

  2. Section 03

    [name]

    The main issues are: • whether the proposed development is permitted development; and if so • whether the proposed development would comply with conditions A.3(a), A.4(2)(a)(ii) and A.4(2)(a)(iii) of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the GPDO).

  3. Section 04

    Reasons

    Under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO, planning permission is granted for the enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse subject to a number of limitations and conditions.

    According to paragraph A.1(i), development is not permitted if the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would be within 2m of the boundary of the curtilage of the dwellinghouse and the height of the eaves of the enlarged part would exceed 3m.

    [name].3(a) states that the materials used in any exterior work must be of a similar appearance to those used in the exterior of the existing dwellinghouse.

    Conditions A.4(2)(a)(ii) and A.4(2)(a)(iii) require that details of certain permitted developments be provided to the local planning authority before the development is begun.

    In this case the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would be within 2m of the boundary of the curtilage of the dwellinghouse. Therefore, development would not be permitted by Class A if the height of the eaves of the enlarged part would exceed 3m.

    For the purposes of Class A, Permitted development rights for householders Technical Guidance (2019) explains that the height of the eaves is to be measured from the ground level at the base of the external wall of the extension to the point where the external wall would meet (if projected upwards) the upper surface of the roof. Parapet walls should not be included in the measurement.

    The appellant has stated that the roof would have a low pitch, that the drawings show the highest point of the roof and the lowest point (the eaves), and that there would be a parapet wall on both sides of the extension.

    However, the drawings do not indicate or illustrate that there would be a pitched roof and parapet walls. Therefore, the eaves height is to be measured from the ground level at the base of the outside wall to the point where that wall would meet the upper surface of the flat roof which, as labelled on the drawings, is just over 3.3m.

    Accordingly, the proposal is not permitted development.

    As the proposal is not permitted development, it is not necessary for me to consider the prior approval application any further. The concerns raised in relation to the Council’s approach to handling the application are outside of the matters that I can consider in this appeal which are constrained by the legislation.

  4. Section 05

    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.

  • Appeal Decision

    Extracted inspector · page 1
    Inspector attribution ID 41771No official casework-database value to compare
    Extracted decision date · page 1
    3 July 2025Matches the official casework database
    Extracted site visit dates
    16 June 2025 (page 1)

Reference and authority

Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.

Case reference
3359344
Application reference
24/P3357
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
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
1
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
22 January 2025
Valid date
28 January 2025
Start date
12 February 2025
Planning authority decision date
30 December 2024
Appeal decision date
3 July 2025

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
72307
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
Back to appeals databaseRequest a correction or privacy review