Prior approval for a single storey rear extension to dwellinghouse (extending beyond the rear wall of the original house – 6m, maximum height – 3m, and eaves height – 2.7m)

📊

See the success rate & inspector analytics

Free to view — just create an account, no payment needed.

Sign Up Free

Technical Issues Heatmap

Fallback Position
Extensions

Inspector’s Reasoning

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 21 March 2017 by C J Anstey BA (Hons) DipTP DipLA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 7th April 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/T5150/D/17/3170229 14 Tewkesbury Gardens, London, NW9 0QT.  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant approval required under Schedule 2, Part 1, Paragraph A.4 of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)(England) Order 2015.  The appeal is made by Mr Pankaj Vekaria against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Brent.  The application Ref 16/5534, dated 20 December 2016, was refused by notice dated 25 January 2017.  The development proposed is prior approval for a single storey rear extension to dwellinghouse (extending beyond the rear wall of the original house – 6m, maximum height – 3m, and eaves height – 2.7m). Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Reasons 2. A 1:1000 scale location plan was submitted with the appeal application showing the position of the proposed extension. However existing and proposed scaled floor plans and elevations were not included. Such drawings are essential for a thorough understanding of a scheme and to determine whether the proposed development would be permitted development. Furthermore in this particular case detailed drawings are required to clarify the relationship of the proposed extension to the rear wall of the original dwelling-house and to the existing single-storey kitchen extension. Consequently the information provided is insufficient to demonstrate that the proposal would be permitted development. This finding constitutes compelling grounds for dismissing this prior approval appeal. None of the other matters raised outweigh the considerations that have led to this decision. Christopher Anstey Inspector
Expert Representation

Don't leave your appeal to chance.

Inspectors are inconsistent. We build a technical defense using precedents from our 182,000+ case archive.
No win, no fee Householder representation — you only pay if you win.

Get Free Review How it works →