Demolition of the existing extension. Erection of single -storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 26 November 2025 by G Sibley MPLAN MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 23 January 2026 Appeal Ref: 6000227 12 Askwith Road, Rainham RM13 8ER • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against the 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 Haroon Hafeez against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Havering. • The application Ref is Y0077.25. • The development proposed is demolition of the existing extension. Erection of single -storey rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and prior approval is granted under the provisions of Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) for demolition of the existing extension. Erection of single-storey rear extension at 12 Askwith Road, Rainham RM13 8ER in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref Y0077.25, and the details included with it including drawing numbers ZAAVIA/12AR/105 Issue A, ZAAVIA/12AR/101 Issue A and ZAAVIA/12AR/103 Issue A. Preliminary Matters 2. The application subject to this appeal was refused at validation stage under paragraph A.4 of the GPDO. However, the Council did issue a notice to confirm that prior approval was refused and setting out the reasons. I have therefore taken this as the Council’s reason for refusal for the purposes of this appeal, as per sub- paragraph A.4 (4) of the GPDO, and the appellant has referred to the Council’s notice in their appeal submissions. 3. As a result of the process taken by the Council, the neighbouring owners or occupiers were not notified of the proposal. In the interests of fairness and natural justice, the neighbouring owners and occupiers were notified of the proposal as set out in sub-paragraph A.4 (5) as part of the appeals process. No comments were received by neighbouring owners or occupiers. Main Issue 4. The main issue relevant to this appeal is whether the proposal would be granted planning permission by Article 3, Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO. Appeal Decision 6000227 2 Reasons 5. Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO permits the enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse, subject to limitations and conditions. 6. Paragraph A.1 (f) states that development is not permitted by Class A if, subject to paragraph (g), the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would have a single storey and, (i) extend beyond the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse by more than 3 metres in the case of any other dwellinghouse, or (ii) exceed 4 metres in height. 7. The proposal would be, based on the submitted plans 6 metres deep and as such it would not comply with paragraph A.1 (f). However, paragraph A.1 (g) states that development is not permitted by Class A if for a dwellinghouse not on article 2(3) land nor on a site of special scientific interest, the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would have a single storey and, (i) extend beyond the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse by more than 8 metres in the case of a detached dwellinghouse, or 6 metres in the case of any other dwellinghouse, or (ii) exceed 4 metres in height. 8. The submitted plans show that the rear extension would be around 6 metres deep and based on the information before me, the house is not on article 2(3) land nor on a site of special scientific interest and it would not exceed 4 metres in height. Accordingly, so long as the scheme would extend out from the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse the extension would comply with the conditions, limitations and restrictions set out in paragraph A.1 (g). 9. The appeal property is a semi-detached bungalow with a staggered rear outrigger and as such, there are two rear walls. The Permitted Development Rights for Householders Technical Guidance (Guidance) states that where the original rear wall of a house is stepped then each of these walls will form the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse. In such cases, the limits of extensions apply to any of the rear walls being extended beyond. 10. Paragraph A.1 (j) (iii) states that development is not permitted by Class A where the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse 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 dwellinghouse. 11. As per the Guidance, both of the rear walls form the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse. The Council state that the extension would be more than half the width of the original dwellinghouse. However, based on the information before me, the rear outrigger formed part of the original dwellinghouse. The proposal would be built to the rear of the existing rear outrigger and no wider than it. Whilst the bathroom to the rear would be demolished, the extension would not extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse and would not extend more than 6 metres from a rear wall of the original dwellinghouse. It would also not exceed 4 metres in height or have more than a single storey. Consequently, the proposal would comply with paragraph A.1 (j). Based on the information before me, the proposal would also comply with the other conditions in the GPDO and as such it would be permitted development. Appeal Decision 6000227 3 Conditions 12. Development permitted by Class A is subject to conditions set out in paragraph A.3 of the GPDO. The extension would not extend the full width of the appeal site and would be single storey. Accordingly, the extension would be bound by the existing boundary fencing and, even if windows were installed on the flank walls the neighbouring properties would be screened by this fencing. Consequently, a condition restricting the installation of windows on the flank walls of the extension is not necessary in this instance. It is not proposed to use the roof as a balcony, roof garden or similar amenity area and it is not necessary to use a condition to require that the roof shall not be used as a such as separate permission would be required to do so. Conclusion 13. Therefore, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. G Sibley INSPECTOR