Single-storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 9 June 2026 by K Hole BA (Hons) Decision by M Russell BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 04 August 2026 Appeal Ref: 6007563 Golden Valley Barn, The Naite, Oldbury on Severn, South Gloucestershire BS35 1RH • 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 Vic Harding against the decision of South Gloucestershire Council. • The application Ref is P26/00145/PNH. • The development proposed is a single-storey rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and prior approval is not required under the provisions of Article 3(1) and schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (GPDO) for a single-storey rear extension at Golden Valley Barn, The Naite, Oldbury on Severn, South Gloucestershire BS35 1RH in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P26/00145/PNH, and the details submitted with it. 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 and Main Issue 3. The Local Planning Authority (LPA) set out its own description of development on the decision notice, and this included the words ‘The erection of a single storey front extension, which would extend beyond the front wall of the original house’. This is a matter of dispute between the main parties. The description in the appeal banner heading and decision therefore reflects the development applied for as per the description on the application form. 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), paragraph A.4(3) provides that the LPA 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 Appeal Decision 6007563 2 development complies with the conditions, limitations or restrictions that are applicable to such permitted development. 6. The LPA’s second reason for refusal raises concern as to whether the plans are an accurate depiction of the host dwelling. Paragraph A.4(2)(b) of the GPDO requires a plan indicating the site and showing the proposed development to be provided. While I acknowledge that the fenestration shown on the plans does not exactly match the existing dwelling, there is no dispute that the siting and proportions of the host building are correct. My observations on site in respect of the host dwelling’s characteristics together with the extension depicted on the proposed plans are sufficient to enable me to assess whether the proposed development complies with the conditions, limitations or restrictions applicable to development permitted by Class A. 7. Furthermore, the application that led to this appeal was specifically ‘to determine if prior approval is required for a proposed: Larger Home Extension’. In the event that the appeal is allowed, the development permitted would relate to that explicitly proposed, that being a ‘single-storey rear extension’. Whether or not other works to the dwelling, such as alterations to either window fenestration or external materials on other elevations, would comply with the condition at Paragraph A.3(a) of the GPDO, is a separate matter. 8. Therefore, the main issue is whether the proposed development complies with the provisions of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO and would therefore constitute permitted development. Reasons for the Recommendation 9. Paragraph A.1(e) of Class A of the GPDO outlines that development is not permitted by Class A if, among other things, the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would extend beyond a wall which forms the principal elevation of the original dwellinghouse. Furthermore, paragraph A.1(g) sets out that development is not permitted if the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would extend beyond the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse by more than 8 metres in the case of a detached dwellinghouse or exceed 4 metres in height. 10. The extension would project from the wall of the original dwelling by 6 metres (m) with a width of 6 m and height of 4 m. In that regard it would potentially comply with paragraph A.1(g) of the GPDO. However, the LPA contends that the extension would extend from the front wall forming the dwelling’s principal elevation. 11. The ‘Permitted development rights for householders: technical guidance’ (the Guidance) (September 2019) indicates that the principal elevation is usually, but not exclusively, understood to be the front of the house. The Guidance also sets out that in most cases the principal elevation will be that part of the house which fronts (directly or at an angle) the main highway serving the house (the main highway will be the one that sets the postcode for the house concerned) and also offers some suggestions on architectural features that could help identify the principal elevation. Ultimately it is a matter of planning judgement. 12. The appeal dwelling is a converted barn that is set away from the highway, accessed via a long gravel driveway. Its southern elevation faces onto a turning circle which also serves the neighbouring main farmhouse. Although there are no projecting architectural features such as a porch or bay windows and an entrance Appeal Decision 6007563 3 door has been blocked up, this elevation is wide and has three large floor to ceiling windows set between areas of timber cladding. Consequently, the southern elevation provides a large, active, elevation on arrival, and is experienced as being the front, principal elevation of the house. 13. In contrast, the northern elevation where the proposed extension would be sited is largely concealed from view on arrival and provides direct access to the dwelling’s private amenity space. This further indicates that the proposal would constitute a rear extension and would comply with both paragraphs A.1(e) and A.1(g) of Class A of the GPDO. 14. The LPA suggests that the description of development provided for previous applications at the site is not itself determinative of its principal elevation. I agree, and even if previous proposals for different development proposals at the site were described as ‘rear extensions’, this does not alter my finding in respect of the proposal before me having regard to the existing site context. 15. For these reasons, I conclude the proposed development complies with the provisions of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO and would therefore constitute permitted development. No objections were received from neighbouring occupiers therefore prior approval is not required. Conditions 16. Any planning permission granted under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A is subject to the conditions in paragraphs A.3 and A.4. No further conditions are necessary in this instance. Conclusion and Recommendation 17. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed. K Hole APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 18. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed. M Russell INSPECTOR