Appeal 6003316
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
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
Replacing existing conservatory and attached rear utility room with open plan extension. Planned building will span the width of the house / attached garage and come out less than existing conservatory Flat roof with lantern ceiling light and bi folding doors to rear.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is whether or not the proposal falls within the limitations of permitted development.
Section 04
Reasons
Prior Approval Class A of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 as amended (GDPO), permits the enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse. Under Class A.1 development is not permitted if certain criteria apply.
The appellant applied to the Council for prior approval to erect a rear extension to the dwelling house to extend from the rear elevation by around 4.27 meters its full width and wrap around to meet the rear wall of the garage, at 3m to eaves level.
There is a garage attached to the side of the dwelling. The utility room extends from the back of the existing garage and is flat roofed and joins into the conservatory extension as one complete entity. The conservatory spans the full width of the host dwelling. This extension as a single entity would be removed to accommodate a new extension.
The appellant disagrees with the findings of the Council with regards to whether or not the proposed extension would be permitted development. I have also consulted the ‘Permitted development rights for households: technical guidance’ in order to come to my assessment on the matter.
In terms of the proposed extension, it would wrap around the rear of the dwelling by extending to the side to tie into the garage in roughly an ‘L’ shape (as is much the arrangement at present). Irrespective of whether or not the garage is original, or a later extension, the garage comprises part of the side of the dwelling. The proposal should be considered as an extension to both the rear and side of the dwelling, although the guidance requires me to consider it as a whole as they would be joined as one. The practical illustration within the technical guidance for rear and side extensions explains the same scenario as the appellant’s proposed situation.
The extension as a whole would result in a development that wraps around and joins up the rear and side of the dwelling. Therefore, by squaring off the corner, it would result in a width greater than half the width of the original dwelling house.
In order to benefit from the permitted development rights set out in the GPDO a proposed development must comply with all of the conditions and limitations set out in relation to that right. The appeal scheme does not meet the limitations set out in [name].1(j)(iii) and A.1(ja) Class A and, consequently, the works proposed would not be permitted development.
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 296No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 19 March 2026Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 13 March 2026 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 6003316
- Application reference
- 25/03825/PNX
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- North Yorkshire Council
- Planning authority code
- Not recorded
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
- Not recorded
- Appeal reason
- refused
- Type detail
- Householder
- Jurisdiction
- No Jurisdiction Associated
- Link status
- Not recorded
Site and development
Published appeal-site measurements and planning designations, without the withheld precise location fields.
- Site area
- 0 hectares
- Floor space
- 36 m²
- Number of residences
- Not recorded
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- Not recorded
- Affects setting of a listed building
- Yes
- 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
- 6 January 2026
- Valid date
- 6 January 2026
- Start date
- 21 January 2026
- Planning authority decision date
- 11 December 2025
- Appeal decision date
- 19 March 2026
Case administration
Published recovery, call-in, costs and enforcement information for this case.
- Redetermined
- Not recorded
- Bespoke
- Not recorded
- Date recovered
- Not recorded
- Date not recovered or derecovered
- Not recorded
- Call-in date
- Not recorded
- Costs applied for
- No
- 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
- Back Office
- Dataset status
- Current release
- Catalogue record ID
- 86196
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:29
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21