Appeal 6000655

The appeal is allowed and prior approval is granted under the provisions of Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 3, Class A, [name].4 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) for erection of single-storey rear extension with a depth of 6.00 metres, highest point of 3.00 metres and height at the eaves of 3.00 metres at [site address] , Havering [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application Ref Y0205.25, dated 21 July 2025, and the details submitted with it including plan nos. ZAAVIA/14EA/101 Issue A, ZAAVIA/14EA/103 Issue A and ZAAVIA/14EA/105 Issue A, pursuant to Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, paragraph A.4(2), and subject to the following additional condition:

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no window or other opening shall be formed in the flank wall of the rear extension hereby permitted facing No [address].

My above decision refers to the application form description rather than that in the decision notice, as that is what the appellant applied for. It accurately describes the proposal and is also not substantively different to the decision notice description.

Under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 as amended (“the GPDO”), planning permission is granted for the enlargement of a dwellinghouse subject to limitations and conditions. Where an application is made for a determination as to whether prior approval is required for development which exceeds the limits in paragraph A.1(f) but is allowed by paragraph A.1(g) to Part 1, paragraph A.4(3) provides that the local planning authority may refuse the application where it considers that the proposed development does not comply with the conditions, limitations or restrictions applicable to such permitted development.

Following the submission of this appeal, the Council consulted adjoining occupiers to the appeal site (No 14) by written notice, and has provided a copy of such written notice. Based on this, I am satisfied that the consultation requirements set out under paragraph A.4(5) have been substantively met. No neighbouring representations have been received in response to this consultation.

Given the above, the main issue is whether the proposed development would be granted planning permission by Article 3, Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO.

The Council specifically refused prior approval because it deemed the proposed development to not comply with limitation A.1(j)(iii) under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO. This sets out that development is not permitted under Class A if 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 dwellinghouse. In relation to a building, the GPDO defines “original” as, amongst other things, a building existing on 1st July 1948, as existing on that date; or if built on or after 1st July 1948, as so built.

No 14 comprises a two-storey end-terraced dwelling facing [address]. It contains a continuous rear elevation wall of pebbledash. An area of pebbledash appears to be of different texture than that on the rest of this rear elevation. However, there is no substantive evidence before me that the original rear elevation of No 14, as defined above, is not what currently exists. Even if there was a previous protrusion beyond the existing rear wall and forming part of the original dwellinghouse, its extent and composition is not borne out in the evidence before me.

Therefore, based on the submitted evidence and my site visit observations, as a matter of fact and degree I conclude that the proposed extension would not project beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse.

Any planning permission granted under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A is subject to the conditions in section A.3. In addition, my formal decision above includes reference to the approved plans. I consider it necessary to impose a further condition (No 1) to restrict the formation of windows on the side wall of the approved extension facing the adjoining No 16, in the interests of living conditions. The Council also suggested a condition preventing the extended roof being used as a balcony or similar amenity area. However, as this would require additional planning permission from the Council in any event, this is unnecessary.

For the above reasons, the appeal is allowed.