Appeal 6003027

The appeal is dismissed.

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.

The development as applied for is that in the banner heading, however the description was changed by the Council, as shown on the acknowledgement letter dated 05 November 2025, to “[name] for the construction of a single storey rear extension which will extend beyond the rear wall of the original dwelling by 6.00m, for which the maximum height will be 3.29m and the height at the eaves will be 3.00m”. This change is relevant within the forthcoming recommendation.

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.

There is nothing before me to suggest that the proposed development would not meet the criterion at GPDO Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A paragraphs A.1. (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (h), (i) and (k). However, given that the development would measure 6 metres in depth, the proposal would exceed the limits in paragraph A.1. (f), but not those outlined in paragraph A.1 (g). Accordingly, in these circumstances, where any owner or occupier of any adjoining premises objects to the proposed development, the prior approval of the local planning authority is required regarding the scheme’s impact on the amenity of adjoining premises.

The maximum height of the development stated on the application form to the Council was incorrect, cited as 3.29 metres (m), when in fact it is 3.5m, including a lantern light. The Council’s position is that this error meant that condition A.4(2)(a)(ii) that requires that before beginning the development, the developer must provide to the local planning authority (LPA) a written description of the proposed development, including the maximum height of the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse, was not met and development was therefore not permitted.

The knock-on effect was that the incorrect height was stated in the changed description of development which was then used in the notification letters sent by the Council to adjoining premises. However, neighbouring occupants have made representations, including reference to the height of the lantern light. Consequently, they were clearly aware of the proposed height of that feature and therefore do not appear to have been prejudiced by this error.

In any event, the actual proposed height of the development (3.5m) would meet the criterion of Class A paragraphs A.1 (f) and A.1(g) which allows for a maximum of 4m. Therefore, irrespective of the initial error on the application form, the height of the proposal would nevertheless be within the parameters of permitted development. Therefore, it is reasonable for me to consider the appeal on the basis of the plans submitted.

The appellant suggests that the height discrepancy can be resolved by a planning condition, however this would not be necessary as Class A paragraph A.4(11) requires that where prior approval is required, development must be carried out in accordance with the details approved, which would include the plans.

While the Council refused prior approval due to the impact of the proposal on the amenity of the occupants of [address], the conditions and limitations of Class A require that I consider the amenity of all adjoining premises as part of this appeal. Accordingly, the main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the amenity of the occupants of adjoining premises.

The appeal dwelling is semi-detached, sharing its side boundary with that of No 18. Owing to its long, linear garden the existing conditions at No 18 mean that its occupants have a generally open and unrestricted outlook from their rear ground floor windows over their garden. The existing boundary treatment between the appeal site and No 18 comprises a moderate height fence and vegetation that projects only modestly above it. On the other side of No 18, the garage of No 20 extends a considerable distance along the common boundary and creates a sense of enclosure on that side.

The proposed development would introduce substantial bulk directly adjacent to boundary of No 18. Although it would have a flat roof, due to its height it would project considerably above the existing fence, and the main part would continue for 6 metres from the rear elevation of the existing dwelling. Consequently, due to its siting and overall bulk, the proposal would appear as a dominant addition from the rear ground floor windows of No 18.

While the garden of No 18 is reasonably wide, the proposal in combination with the garage of No 20 would result in an overbearing and enclosing effect when viewed from these windows, which the length of the garden would not satisfactorily mitigate. Consequently, the proposed development would result in unacceptable harm to the amenity of the occupants of No 18 with regard to outlook.

Notwithstanding this, the orientation of the site means that the proposed development would be located north of the rear elevation of No 18. As a result, whilst there would be some effect to levels of daylight and sunlight admitted through the ground floor windows, it would not be unacceptable. Therefore, it would not affect sunlight reaching the rear windows of No 18. While it would reduce sky view slightly, it has not been demonstrated that there would be any material harmful effect on daylight. Furthermore, as there would be no windows facing No 18 there would be no overlooking of that property.

The development pattern of [address] and [address] results in the side boundary of the appeal dwelling forming the rear boundary of 66, 64, and [address], and the side boundary of [address]. The separation distances between the appeal site and these properties are sufficient to ensure there would be no harm to the amenity of the occupiers of these properties

For the reasons set out above, I find that the proposed development would result in an adverse effect on the amenity of the neighbouring occupants of [address]. [name] have found no harm in respect of light, this does not outweigh the harm I have identified in terms of outlook.

The appellant has referred me to other matters in support of this appeal, including development permitted under the prior approval regime elsewhere. The schemes allowed on appeal were in different circumstances to those of this scheme, in particular the boundary treatments and degree of visibility of the extensions were materially different. Therefore, the decisions on those appeals do not justify granting prior approval in this situation.

[name] note the appellant’s desire to provide additional accommodation for their family, the GPDO requires that proposals are assessed solely against the conditions, limitations and specified prior approval matters contained within Class A, with no provision for the consideration of any other balancing factors. Consequently, the matters raised cannot and have not influenced my

[name] appreciate the appellant’s concerns about the Council’s actions during the application process, those matters fall outside my remit in considering this appeal.

For the reasons given above, the development would fail to accord with the conditions as set out within the GPDO and I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

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