Single storey rear extension, extending beyond the rear wall of the original house by 5.95m, for which the maximum height would be 3.15m, and for which the height of the eaves would be 2.90m (42 Day Notification for Householder Permitted Development Prior Approval)

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 20 May 2025 by Alison Fish BA (Hons) Dip TP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 22 May 2025 Appeal Ref: 6000098 54 Ernest Grove, Beckenham, Bromley BR3 3JF • 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, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended). • The appeal is made by Mark Pjetri against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Bromley. • The application Ref is DC/24/03867/HHPA. • The development proposed is described on the application form as ‘Single storey rear extension, extending beyond the rear wall of the original house by 5.95m, for which the maximum height would be 3.15m, and for which the height of the eaves would be 2.90m (42 Day Notification for Householder Permitted Development Prior Approval). Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matter 2. I have taken the description of the proposed development from the Council’s decision notice as it more succinctly reflects the proposal before me than the one provided on the planning application form. Background and Main Issue 3. Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (‘the GDPO’) permits the enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse subject to a number of limitations. 4. The Council considers that the extension 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, thereby not complying with the limitations set out in A.1. (j) (iii) of the GPDO. 5. Consequently, the main issue in this appeal is whether the proposed development constitutes permitted development. Reasons 6. The existing two storey semi-detached dwelling has a single storey projection on the rear elevation There is no dispute between the parties that this is an original part of the dwelling1. 1 Paragraph 2.2 of the Appellant’s Statement of Case Appeal Decision 6000098 2 7. A number of the properties in the vicinity of the appeal site have similar projections from the rear, consisting of rendered walls under a hipped tiled roof. The prevalence of these projections together with the use of materials and details which match those used on the main house, leads me to conclude that on the evidence before me, the single storey projection on the rear does form part of the original building2. 8. The side wall of the projection would constitute a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse. The proposed rear extension would extend across the full width of the rear elevation of the dwelling. 9. I therefore conclude on the evidence before me, that the proposed extension 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, thereby not complying with the limitations set out in A.1. (j) (iii) of the GPDO. 10. The proposed extension would not constitute permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO. As the proposal does not constitute permitted development, the appeal fails. I do not need to go on and consider the effect on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupier, which was the Council’s other reason for refusal. Alison Fish INSPECTOR 2 Defined in the GPDO as in relation to a building existing on 1st July 1948, as existing on that date and in relation to a building built on or after 1st July 1948, as so built.