Prior Approval for the construction of a single storey rear extension which will extend beyond the rear wall of the original dwelling by 5.54m, for which the maximum height will be 2.850m and the height at the eaves will be 2.666m

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 23 March 2026 by Alison Fish BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 30th March 2026 Appeal Ref: 6001641 108 Earlshall Road, Eltham, London SE9 1PR • 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 Michael Holloway against the decision of the Royal London Borough of Greenwich. • The application Ref is 25/3202/PNI. • The development proposed is Prior Approval for the construction of a single storey rear extension which will extend beyond the rear wall of the original dwelling by 5.54m, for which the maximum height will be 2.850m and the height at the eaves will be 2.666m. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matter 2. The description of the proposal on the application form is long and descriptive. As a result, I have taken the description from the decision notice which is more succinct but still accurately reflects the development applied for. Background and Main Issue 3. 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’) planning permission is granted for the enlargement of a dwellinghouse subject to limitations and conditions. 4. Where an application is made for a determination as to whether prior approval is required for development which exceeds the limits in paragraph A.1(f) but is allowed by paragraph A.1(g) to Part 1, paragraph A.4(3) provides that the local planning authority may refuse the application where it considers that the proposed development does not comply with the conditions, limitations or restrictions that are applicable to such permitted development. 5. The Council considers that the extension would not comply with conditions A.3. (a) and A.4.(2) (a) (iii) of the GPDO with regards to the materials to be used in any exterior work and the height of the eaves respectively. 6. Consequently, the main issue in this appeal is whether the proposed development constitutes permitted development under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GDPO. Appeal Decision 6001641 2 Reasons 7. Condition A.3.(a) of the GPDO requires that the materials used in any exterior work must be of a similar appearance to those used in the construction of the exterior of the existing dwellinghouse. 8. The existing dwelling is constructed of brick with a roof covering of grey tiles. The submitted details indicate that the brick is London Stock brick, which I saw had a yellow to brown appearance. A single storey extension on the rear was constructed of a brick with a more red/brown appearance with grey roof tiles. 9. The term ‘similar appearance’ means that there is a requirement for them to look visually similar to those of the existing house, but they do not necessarily need to be the same materials. In this respect, I accept that a grey lead roof covering would have a similar appearance to the grey roof tiles used on the main house and the extension. 10. However, it is proposed that the exterior of the proposed extension would be clad in a charcoal-coloured composite cladding. There is no composite cladding on the existing dwelling. Its form and appearance would be noticeably different to the bricks. The difference would be heightened by the dark colouring of the cladding which would be in stark contrast to the colour of the bricks used in the construction of the exterior of the existing dwelling. 11. Notwithstanding the appellant’s view that the charcoal-coloured composite cladding would contrast well with the existing materials used in the external walls, it could not be said to be a material of a similar appearance to either of the bricks on the existing dwelling. 12. The proposal would therefore fail to comply with the requirements of condition A.3.(a) of the GPDO. Accordingly, it would not be permitted development. Other Matters 13. Condition A.4.(2) (ii) of the GPDO requires that before beginning the development, the height of the eaves of the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse must be provided to the Council. It does not require the submission of plans or drawings. The GPDO only requires a written description. 14. The appellant indicated on the application form to the Council that the eaves height would be 2.666 metres measured externally from natural ground level. However, the appellant has, in this instance, opted to submit plans as well and the Council say that the submitted drawings, indicate an eaves height of 2.77m. There would appear to be some discrepancy between the appellant’s submissions. However, as I have found above that the appeal scheme would not be permitted development in any event, in this instance, the height of the extension is not determinative. 15. The benefits of this proposal over an earlier scheme1, the materials used on neighbouring properties or the use of flat roofs generally in the area and the appellant’s need for the extension are not relevant considerations in this type of appeal. 1 LPA Ref: 15/1304/PNI Appeal Decision 6001641 3 Conclusion 16. I therefore conclude that 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. Alison Fish INSPECTOR