Single-storey rear extension with rooflights

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 15 December 2025 by A James BSc (Hons) MA MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 17th December 2025 Appeal Ref: APP/E2205/D/25/3374016 44 Homestead, Singleton, Kent TN23 4PX • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant approval required 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 appeal is made by Mr Paul Swonnell against the decision of Ashford Borough Council. • The application reference is NOT/2025/1126. • The development proposed is single-storey rear extension with rooflights. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. In the interests of conciseness, I have omitted text from the proposal description that does not relate to the operative part of the development. Main Issue 3. The main issue is whether the proposed development satisfies the requirements of the Town & Country (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the GPDO) with regard to being permitted development under the above Order. Reasons 4. The appeal property is an attached bungalow, which is sited at the end of a cul-de- sac. I observed on my site visit that the front elevation of the appeal property (which features the front door) broadly faces towards the cul-de-sac in which the appeal property is sited. The rear elevation and one side elevation are visible from adjacent roads. 5. The proposal seeks to provide a single storey rear extension. The Council’s reason for refusal relates solely to the proposal not complying with A.1 (j) (iii) of Class A, Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the GPDO. 6. Paragraph A.1(j) of Class A of the Order outlines that development is not permitted by Class A if, among other things, the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse and would have a width greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse. 7. The Permitted Development Rights for Householders: Technical Guidance states that ‘a wall forming a side elevation of a house will be any wall that cannot be Appeal Decision APP/E2205/D/25/3374016 2 identified as being a front wall or a rear wall’. In this case, the appeal property has a small rear projection. While one side of the rear projection is flush with the side of the appeal property that faces Bucksford Lane, the dwelling has another small side elevation, that faces towards the adjoining property. 8. There is no compelling evidence before me that the existing rear projection was not part of the original dwelling. In this case, the proposal would extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwelling and would have a width greater than half the width of the original dwelling. Consequently, the proposed extension is not permitted under the above Order. Conclusion 9. For the reasons given above, the appeal is dismissed. A James INSPECTOR