8m single storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 9 June 2026 by S Manson DipTP MRTPI Decision by John Morrison BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 14 July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6007699 65 Conway Road, Whitton TW4 5LW • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant approval 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 Mahesh Bukka against the decision of Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council. • The application Ref PA25/4342. • The development proposed is an 8m single storey rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal Procedure and Preliminary Matter 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. 3. 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), permits development consisting of the enlargement improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse. In the event development is permitted under Class A, this is subject to adhering with a number of criteria and conditions set out in paragraphs A.1, A.2, A.3 and A.4. Main Issue 4. The main issue is whether the proposed development would accord with the limitations of Class A with specific regard to any alteration to any part of the roof of the dwellinghouse. Reasons for the Recommendation 5. The appeal property is a single-storey dwelling that appears to have been extended at the rear by way of a single-storey gabled element, alongside a smaller flat-roofed lean-to addition. The rear elevation therefore presents a combination of roof forms, including a prominent gable projection extending from the main roof slope. 6. Paragraph A.1(k)(iv) of Class A of the Order states that development is not permitted if it would consist of or include the alteration of any part of the roof of the dwellinghouse. In this case, the proposed development would involve a clear alteration to the existing roof form. The current arrangement includes a gabled roof projection extending from the main roof slope. The proposal would remove this Appeal Decision 6007699 2 gable feature and replace it with a flush hipped roof form across that section. This, therefore, would represent an alteration to the roof of the dwellinghouse. 7. The appellant’s contention that the relevant provision applies only to the “original” dwellinghouse is not supported by the wording of the legislation. Paragraph A.1(k)(iv) of Class A of the Order clearly refers to “the dwellinghouse,” without qualification. In contrast, other provisions within Class A explicitly refer to the “original dwellinghouse” where such a limitation is intended. The absence of that qualifier in Paragraph A.1(k)(iv) therefore indicates that the restriction applies to any part of the dwellinghouse as it exists at the time of the proposal, irrespective of whether that part formed part of the original structure. Consequently, any alteration to the roof of the dwellinghouse, including later additions or extensions, falls outside the scope of the description of permitted development under this provision. Conclusion and Recommendation 8. For the reasons given above, the appeal scheme would fail to accord with specific limitations of the above mentioned permitted development class. It would thus not satisfy the definition of permitted development set out thereby. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. S Manson APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 9. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. John Morrison INSPECTOR