Single storey rear extension

Appeal Decisions Site visit made on 12 March 2026 by T Mansfield BA (Hons) Decisions by L McKay MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 10 April 2026 Appeal A - Ref: 6000362 45 Tenterden Gardens, Hendon, Barnet, London, NW4 1TG • 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 Belachovsky against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Barnet. • The application Ref is 25/2095/PNH. • The development proposed is a single storey rear extension. Appeal B - Ref: 6000594 45 Tenterden Gardens, Hendon, Barnet, London, NW4 1TG • 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 Belachovsky against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Barnet. • The application Ref is 25/2858/PNH. • The development proposed is a single storey rear extension. Decisions 1. Appeal A is allowed and prior approval is not required under the provisions of Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, paragraph A.4 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) for a single storey rear extension at 45 Tenterden Gardens, London, NW4 1TG in accordance with application Ref 25/2095/PNH and the details submitted with it including drawing nos EX - L001 and PR - L002, pursuant to Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, paragraph A.4(2). 2. Appeal B is dismissed. Appeal Procedure 3. A site visit was undertaken for both appeals by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendations are set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeals. Preliminary Matters 4. Appeals A and B both relate to the same site and share similar reasons for refusal. To avoid duplication, this report will deal with both appeals. Each appeal is nevertheless considered on its own individual merits. Appeal Planning Officer 6000362 2 5. Although described as ‘single storey rear extension’, the development proposed in each appeal is two separate rear enlargements. Main Issues 6. The main issue for each appeal is whether the proposal would be granted planning permission by 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 for the Recommendations 7. Paragraph A.4(3) of the GPDO sets out that the local planning authority may refuse an application where, in the opinion of the authority, the developer has provided insufficient information to enable the authority to establish whether the proposed development complies with the conditions, limitations or restrictions applicable to development permitted by Class A which exceeds the limits in paragraph A.1(f) but is allowed by paragraph A.1(g). In both Appeal A and Appeal B, the Council contend that on account of the sloping nature of the site, the information provided by the appellant is insufficient to confirm the maximum height of the extension and the height at the eaves of the extension and ensure that the development complies with paragraphs A.1(g)(ii) and A.1(i) of Class A. 8. The courts have held that the prior approval procedure is attended by the minimum of formalities and it is not mandatory to provide information beyond that specified in the GPDO. Paragraph A.4(2) of the GPDO requires the developer to provide the local planning authority with a written description of the proposed development, including (i) how far the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse extends beyond the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse, (ii) the maximum height of the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse, and (iii) the height of the eaves of the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse, alongside a plan indicating the site and showing the proposed development. Paragraph A.4(11) then requires that the development must be carried out in accordance with the details provided under sub-paragraph (2) where prior approval is not required. 9. In both Appeal A and Appeal B, the information provided by the appellant satisfies these statutory requirements. The respective application form for each appeal specifies the proposed dimensions of the extensions measured externally from the natural ground level, including the maximum height of the extension and the height at the eaves of the extension. 10. Article 2(2) of the GPDO provides that any reference in the Order to the height of a building is to be construed as a reference to its height when measured from ground level. It further specifies that for the purposes of that paragraph ‘ground level’ means the level of the surface of the ground immediately adjacent to the building in question or, where the level of the surface of the ground on which it is to be situated is not uniform, the level of the highest part of the surface of the ground adjacent to it. 11. Ground level is not uniform at the rear of the appeal site, with steps leading down from the property and a raised patio to the lower level of the garden. The Government’s guidance set out in ‘Permitted development rights for householders technical guidance’ further clarifies that ground level would not include any addition laid on top of the ground such as decking. Appeal Planning Officer 6000362 3 12. Therefore, the presence of the raised patio and steps does not affect where the maximum height of the extensions or the height at the eaves of the extensions should be measured from in each appeal. Instead, in both appeals the relevant ground level to measure from is the highest part of the surface of the ground adjacent to the proposed extensions. 13. In Appeal A, the maximum height of the extensions and the height at the eaves of the extensions are both specified on the application form as 3m above natural ground level. These dimensions comply with the maximum dimensions set out in paragraphs A.1(g)(ii) and A.1(i) of the GPDO. 14. There is no substantive evidence before me to suggest that the development proposed in Appeal A cannot be constructed in accordance with the dimensions provided on the application form as measured from the relevant ground level. The GPDO requires the development to be carried out in accordance with those submitted details. In the event that the development was carried out in exceedance of those dimensions, the development may not represent permitted development and as such the Council would be able to take action as appropriate. Therefore, for the reasons above, Appeal A complies with the conditions, limitations or restrictions applicable to development permitted by Class A. 15. In Appeal B, the maximum height of the extensions and the height at the eaves of the extensions are both specified on the application form as 3m above natural ground level. These dimensions comply with the maximum dimensions set out in paragraphs A.1(g)(ii) and A.1(i) of the GPDO. 16. Nevertheless, in Appeal B additional information has been provided in the form of detailed plan and elevation drawings. The elevations confirm that the extension proposed to the rear of the lounge is within 2m of the boundary of the curtilage of the dwellinghouse, meaning paragraph A.1(i) is applicable in the assessment of this extension. The other extension is more than 2m from a boundary, so would be subject to a maximum height of 4m. 17. The height of the flat roofs of both proposed extensions, which incorporate the eaves, are shown on the elevation drawings as 3000mm. However, this height is drawn as being taken from the top of the raised patio. Ground level immediately adjacent to the proposed extensions, as defined in the GPDO, is not marked on the elevations. Whilst the drawings show road level as consistent with the top of the patio, this does not mean the top of the patio is consistent with natural ground level. 18. The elevations therefore indicate that the eaves of the extensions in Appeal B would be more than 3m high when taken from natural ground level rather than the raised surface. The conflict between the dimensions stated on the application form and those indicated on the elevations introduces an evidential inconsistency that means Appeal B fails to clearly demonstrate that the proposed development complies with paragraph A.1(i) of Class A. For these reasons, there is insufficient information to confirm that Appeal B complies with the conditions, limitations or restrictions applicable to development permitted by Class A. Other Matter 19. The construction of a raised patio would usually be an engineering operation and does not in this case constitute an enlargement to the dwellinghouse for the purposes of the GPDO. For this reason, the age of the existing patio does not affect Appeal Planning Officer 6000362 4 the assessment of either scheme and paragraph j(a) of the GPDO, which was raised by the Council in response to Appeal B, does not appear to be directly applicable. Conclusions and Recommendations 20. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that Appeal A should be allowed and prior approval is not required. However, due to the evidential inconsistency, Appeal B should be dismissed. T Mansfield APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decisions 21. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis Appeal A is allowed and prior approval is not required. Appeal B is dismissed. L McKay INSPECTOR