Single storey extension to the rear of the existing house with a rearwards extension of no greater than 6m and a width of 3.2m (which is no greater than half the width of the original house (6.5m)). Matching construction materials will be used. The ridge height of the roof of the proposed extension will be 3.15m (no greater than 4m) and the height of the eaves will be 2.85m (no greater than 3m)

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 22 October 2018 by K Ford MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 12 November 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/G3110/D/18/3203498 67 Abingdon Road, Oxford, Oxfordshire OX1 4PR  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant approval required under part 1, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended).  The appeal is made by Mr Nathan Pike against the decision of Oxford City Council.  The application Ref 18/00684/H42, dated 9 March 2018, was refused by notice dated 16 April 2018.  The development proposed is described as a single storey extension to the rear of the existing house with a rearwards extension of no greater than 6m and a width of 3.2m (which is no greater than half the width of the original house (6.5m)). Matching construction materials will be used. The ridge height of the roof of the proposed extension will be 3.15m (no greater than 4m) and the height of the eaves will be 2.85m (no greater than 3m). Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is whether the proposal constitutes permitted development 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). Reasons 3. The appeal relates to the erection of what is described as a single storey rear extension which would have a depth of some 6 metres and a maximum height of some 3.15 metres. At the time of my site visit it was evident that construction of the extension had begun. 4. Schedule 2, Part 1, paragraph A of the GPDO allows for the enlargement, improvement or other alteration of the original dwelling house. The GPDO states that development is not permitted by Class A if ‘the enlarged part of the dwelling would extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse and would (i) exceed 4 metres in height; (ii) have more than a single storey; or (iii) have a width greater than half the width of the original dwelling’. 5. However, paragraph A.4(1) applies conditions to development permitted by Class A in the above circumstances, as set out in paragraph A.4.(2)(a) to (e). Appeal Decision APP/G3110/D/18/3203498 2 Important to these conditions is the requirement at paragraph A.4.(2) that the requirements of (a) to (e) must be provided before the beginning of development. Paragraph A.4.(10) confirms the circumstances in which the development may begin. 6. Under the provisions of the GPDO if work has commenced on the development it would no longer benefit from approval granted by Class A. Conclusion 7. For the reasons identified, and having regard to all other matters raised, the scheme cannot benefit from deemed permission under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. K Ford INSPECTOR