Proposed single-storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 14 July 2026 by I Ingledew BSc (Hons) Decision by T Law BSc MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 18 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6007110 181 Lower House Crescent, South Gloucestershire, Filton BS34 7DL • 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 S Rajput against the decision of South Gloucestershire Council. • The application Ref is P25/02898/PNH. • The development proposed is Proposed single-storey rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Preliminary Matters 3. The appellant submitted an appeal on the adjacent property 179 Lower House Crescent1. The appeal has been dealt with a different inspector and, although there are similarities, I have dealt with this appeal on the basis of its own merits. 4. 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. 5. Where an application is made for prior approval 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, 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 6. The main issue is whether the proposed development would be granted planning permission by Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO. 1 6006848 Appeal Decision 6007110 2 Reasons for the Recommendation 7. The appeal property is a two storey dwellinghouse within a terraced row. To the rear elevation, the property hosts a single storey rear projection which the main parties are in agreement on being original to the property. The appellant’s statement suggested the side elevation of the rear projection had been demolished. However, at the time of my site visit, I observed that this rear projection was completely whole, with both side elevations intact and no evidence of demolition work. 8. There is no dispute between the parties that the proposed extension would comply with the limitations and restrictions in paragraph A.1 other than in relation to paragraphs A.1(j). From the evidence before me, I see no reason to disagree in relation to the undisputed paragraphs. Therefore, my assessment will focus on the paragraphs in dispute. 9. The proposal would extend to a depth of approximately 6m and would extend across most of the rear elevation of the original dwellinghouse. In doing so, it would wrap around the existing rear projection. As set out in Paragraph A.1(j) of the GPDO, development is not permitted under Article 3, Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A if the extension projects beyond a wall forming a side elevation and would have a width greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse. 10. The appellant contends that the present tense of the GPDO requires the side wall to exist at the time of assessment and that should the side wall be demolished at the time of the assessment it therefore cannot form a side elevation for which the proposal would be required to adhere to A.1(j). However, from my site visit, and the plans before me, both side elevations of the rear projection were intact and existing and therefore must be taken into consideration. Furthermore, the proposed drawings appear to detail that parts of the wall of the existing extension will be retained. Owing to its wrap around form, the proposed extension would project beyond the wall that forms the side elevation of the rear projection and would extend more than half the width of the original dwellinghouse and would therefore would not comply with paragraph A.1(j). 11. The appellant has also drawn my attention to a number of appeals. Four of these appeals were dealt with under an earlier iteration of the GPDO and also deal with retrospective and/or enforcement cases. These therefore represent a different process and legislation and are therefore not applicable to this case. The final appeal concerns a property where the rear projection had been completely demolished to create a flat, rear elevation prior to the decision. However, this case is not comparable as, as established, the side elevation in this case remains existing at the time of assessment and parts of the existing rear extension will remain, and therefore is subject to the limitations and restrictions of Paragraph A.1(j). 12. Although the appellant has provided a number of prior approval decisions from other Local Planning Authorities, it is not clear from the information provided if the side elevations were in situ or demolished at the time of these decisions and therefore I cannot conclude if these are comparable in this instance. 13. For the reasons above, I therefore conclude that the proposal would fail to meet the specific requirements outlined in Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, Paragraph A.1(j) of Appeal Decision 6007110 3 the GPDO. Consequently, it would not be development granted planning permission by Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO. Conclusion and Recommendation 14. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. I Ingledew APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 15. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. T Law INSPECTOR