Appeal 6005052

The appeal is allowed and prior approval is not required under the provisions of Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, paragraph A.4 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) for a 6-metre-deep single storey rear extension, maximum height 3.9 metres, eaves height 3 metres at [site address] in accordance with the application 2025/06346/PA made on 6 November 2025, and the details submitted with it (Location and Site Plan) pursuant to Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, paragraph A.4(2).

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) (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 (larger home extension), paragraph A.4(3) provides that the local planning authority may refuse the application where it considers that the proposed development does not comply – or that the developer has provided insufficient information to enable the authority to establish whether the proposed development complies with the conditions, limitations or restrictions that are applicable to such permitted development.

The Council’s refusal of the application is based on the latter ground. In particular, the Council concluded that, in the absence of sufficiently clear information relating to the existing site conditions, it was unable to establish whether the proposed development would comply with paragraph A.1(j) of Class A, Part 1 of the GPDO.

The main issue in this appeal is whether the proposed development would be granted planning permission under Article 3, Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO.

The appeal property comprises one half of a semi-detached pair. To the rear, the property includes a two-storey bay feature and a single-storey bay window, which mirror those found on the neighbouring property. Given the symmetry between the properties, it is reasonable to conclude that these features are part of the original construction. The single-storey lean-to structure along the shared boundary with the adjoining property does not exceed half the width of the appeal dwelling and is set back from the rear elevation of the appeal property.

The proposed rear extension would project 6 metres beyond the rear wall of the original dwelling. It would have a maximum height of 3.9 metres and an eaves height of 3 metres. Due to the set-back position of the lean-to, the proposal would not join with the existing structure to form a wrap-around extension. Consequently, it would have no effect on the width of the existing side extension, and the total enlargement would not exceed more than half the width of the original dwellinghouse. The proposal would therefore comply with the limitation set out at paragraph A.1(j) to Part 1.

The proposal would exceed the limits in paragraph A.1(f) but would be allowed by paragraph A.1(g) to Part 1 (larger home extension). Where any owner or occupier of any adjoining premises objects to the proposed development, paragraph A.4.7 of the GPDO sets out that the prior approval of the local planning authority is required as to the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of any adjoining premises. No objections were raised by the occupants of neighbouring properties and therefore, the need for prior approval has not been triggered. It is therefore not necessary for me to assess the effect of the proposal on amenity.

Accordingly, I find that the proposed development would be granted planning permission under Article 3, Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed and prior approval is not required.