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 FreeTechnical 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.