Proposed single storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 27 January 2026 by L Wilson BA (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 16th February 2026 Appeal Ref: 6002310 96 Walden Drive, Bradford, West Yorkshire BD9 6JT • 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, Paragraph A.4 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (GPDO). • The appeal is made by Nadeem Rathore against the decision of City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council. • The application Ref is 25/03656/PNH. • The development is proposed single storey rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. Under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO, planning permission is granted for the enlargement of a dwellinghouse subject to specified limitations and conditions. 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), 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 – or that the developer has provided insufficient information to enable the authority to establish whether the proposed development complies with the conditions, limitations or restrictions that are applicable to such permitted development. Main Issue 3. The main issue is whether the proposed development would be granted planning permission by Article 3(1), Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO. Reasons 4. 96 Walden Drive is a semi-detached dwellinghouse. For the purposes of Class A of the GPDO, certain limitations apply where a proposal would join an existing enlargement. 5. Paragraph A.1(ja) of the GPDO sets out that development is not permitted by Class A if any total enlargement (being the enlarged part together with any existing enlargement of the original dwellinghouse to which it will be joined) exceeds or would exceed the limits set out in sub-paragraphs (e) to (j). On my site visit I observed that the property had an existing part two-storey, part single-storey rear extension. The proposal would adjoin this extension. Therefore, under the GPDO, Appeal Decision 6002310 2 the total enlargement comprises both the existing extension and the proposed single-storey rear extension. 6. Paragraph A.1(g) of the GPDO allows an enlarged part of the dwellinghouse only where it is single storey and does not exceed 4 metres in height. Although the proposal itself is single storey, the existing two‑storey extension exceeds 4 metres in height, although no elevational drawings have been provided to show its exact height. When taken together, the height of the total enlargement would therefore exceed the 4m height restriction set out in A.1(g). 7. Paragraph A.1(h) of the GPDO sets out that development is not permitted by Class A if the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would have more than a single storey and would extend beyond the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse by more than 3m. Although the proposed extension itself is single storey, the GPDO again requires an assessment of the total enlargement. Thus, when the proposed extension is combined with the existing extension, the total enlargement would consequently exceed the 3m limitation set out in paragraph A.1(h). 8. For these reasons, and notwithstanding the absence of detailed elevational drawings, the total enlargement created by the existing and proposed extensions would exceed the height and projection limits set out in the GPDO. The proposed extension would therefore not comply with the provisions of the GPDO and thus would not constitute permitted development. Other Matters 9. The appellant sets out what they describe as exceptional household circumstances. They also highlight that the extension would not have a negative impact on neighbours or the wider area, and that the proposal would improve safety, quality of life and living standards. Nonetheless, in light of the requirements and limitations of the GPDO, the other matters highlighted do not change my findings on the main issue in this appeal. Conclusion 10. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal does not succeed. L Wilson INSPECTOR