Single storey larger rear extension, extending 4.7m from rear wall of original dwelling

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 3 March 2026 by Thomas Courtney BA(Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 16 March 2026 Appeal Ref: 6004282 2 Coniston Road, Coulsdon, Croydon, CR5 3BS • 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 Carlos Serrao against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Croydon. • The application Ref is 25/03388/GPDO. • The development proposed is a single storey larger rear extension, extending 4.7m from rear wall of original dwelling. 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, paragraph A.4 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) for a single storey larger rear extension, extending 4.7m from rear wall of original dwelling at 2 Coniston Road, Coulsdon, CR5 3BS in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/03388/GPDO, and the plans submitted with it, pursuant to Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, paragraph A.4(2). Preliminary Matters 2. 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. 3. Paragraph A.4(7) to Part 1 requires the local planning authority to assess the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of all adjoining premises, taking into account any representations received. 4. The Council has referenced development plan policies in its decision notice. The principle of development is established by the GPDO and the provisions of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO do not expressly or otherwise require determination of the appeal on the basis of s38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. However, I have had regard to the policies of the development plan and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) only insofar as they are a material consideration relevant to the matters of prior approval specified for Class A. Appeal Decision 6004282 2 Main Issue 5. I consider that the main issue in this appeal is the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of adjoining premises with regard to light, privacy, outlook and sense of enclosure. Reasons 6. The appeal property at No 2 Coniston Road is a two-storey terraced dwelling. The proposed single-storey rear extension would project approximately 4.7 metres from the rear wall of the original dwelling. It would have a flat roof with a height of around 3 metres and would extend along the shared boundaries with the adjoining properties. 7. The extension would abut the common boundary with No 4 and would therefore be visible from the rear windows and garden of that property. The Council considers that the proposal would result in an unacceptable impact on the amenity of that property, including a loss of light, and refers to a breach of the 45-degree guideline. Notwithstanding this, the extension would remain limited to single-storey height, and a substantial amount of open sky would remain visible above the structure when viewed from neighbouring windows. Whilst there may be some reduction in the amount of light reaching the neighbouring property, I am not persuaded that the degree of change would be so significant as to result in an unacceptable loss of light. 8. Furthermore, due to the position of the buildings, with No 4 being located to the south of the appeal dwelling, the proposed extension would not block any sunlight reaching the neighbouring rear façade, patio or garden. The proposal would therefore not lead to any adverse loss of sunlight or overshadowing. 9. The proposed extension would be modest in scale given its single storey height and depth of around 4.7 metres. Although it would introduce additional built form along the boundary and would be noticeable from the neighbouring property, the scale of the proposal is typical of many single-storey domestic rear extensions. Most of the neighbouring garden would remain open beyond the depth of the extension and the extension would not obstruct or dominate the outlook from neighbouring windows to such an extent that it would appear unduly oppressive or overbearing. 10. Concerns have been raised regarding potential overlooking. However, the proposal is limited to a single-storey rear extension and would not introduce elevated windows, balconies or other features that would enable views into neighbouring properties. Given the proposed windows would be oriented towards the appeal dwelling’s rear garden, the proposal would not result in overlooking towards No 4’s rear elevation and any views of the adjoining garden would not result in an adverse loss of privacy for the neighbouring occupants. There would also be a sufficient separation distance between the proposed extension and the neighbouring properties on Sherwood Road. Consequently, I find that the development would not give rise to unacceptable impacts on the privacy of neighbouring occupants. 11. The extension would also adjoin the boundary with the newly constructed dwelling at No 2A. I note that this property sits at a lower ground level than the appeal dwelling, meaning the extension may appear somewhat taller when viewed from Appeal Decision 6004282 3 that property. Nevertheless, the plans show that the extension would project only around 1.9 metres beyond the rear wall of No 2A, with the majority of the structure sitting broadly alongside the existing built form of that property. As a result, only a limited portion of the extension would extend along the shared boundary adjacent to the neighbouring patio area. Taking this relationship into account, together with the single-storey scale of the proposal, the extension would not appear overly dominant or obtrusive. It would therefore not result in an unacceptable loss of outlook or an overbearing sense of enclosure for the occupiers of No 2A. 12. Drawing these matters together, although the extension would be visible from neighbouring properties and would introduce additional built form along the shared boundaries, the projection, height and relationship with the adjoining dwellings would not give rise to an unacceptable impact on the amenity of adjoining occupiers in terms of outlook, privacy, enclosure or loss of light. 13. Accordingly, the proposal would accord with the limitations and conditions of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the of the GPDO. It would also not conflict with Policy DM10 of the Croydon Local Plan (2018) and Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021) insofar as they seek to ensure that proposals protect the amenity of the occupiers of adjoining buildings. Other Matters 14. A number of objections have been raised by neighbouring residents. These include concerns relating to the design of the extension, its appearance, and the impact of ongoing construction works in the area. However, the proposal has been determined according to the limitations and conditions outlined within Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the of the GPDO. The prior approval process, and in particular, Paragraph A.4(7) to Part 1 under Class A is limited to considering the impact of the proposed extension on the amenity of adjoining premises. Matters relating to design, character, construction activity, or other planning considerations fall outside the scope of this assessment and cannot therefore be determinative in this appeal. 15. The occupier of No. 4 Coniston Road states that the proposed extension would encroach over the shared boundary between the properties. Whilst the submitted plans appear to indicate that part of the extension may extend beyond the boundary line, matters relating to land ownership and property boundaries are private legal matters between the relevant parties. The planning system does not determine such matters, and the grant of prior approval would not confer any rights to build on land outside the appellant’s control. Consequently, this matter does not affect my assessment of the proposal in planning terms. 16. Furthermore, matters relating to the detailed design of drainage systems and the disposal of surface water are not within the scope of this assessment. Consequently, these matters do not affect my determination of the appeal. 17. A representation raised issues regarding a shared driveway adjacent to No 2A Coniston Road. The development site as part of this appeal, outlined by the red line on the Location Plan, does not adjoin the shared driveway in question. The submitted concerns are not directly related to this case and have not been determinative in my assessment of the proposal. Appeal Decision 6004282 4 Conclusion 18. For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed and prior approval should be granted. Thomas Courtney INSPECTOR