Rear ground floor extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 2 June 2026 by J Reed MPlan MRTPI Decision by A M Nilsson BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 28th July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6008079 21 Topfield Lane, Dalton, Rotherham S65 3QU • 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 Ghaffar Shafia against the decision of Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council. • The application Ref is RB2026/0304. • The development proposed is a rear ground floor 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 and Main Issues 3. 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 Order), planning permission is granted for the enlargement of a dwellinghouse subject to limitations and conditions. 4. 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) 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. 5. This includes, at A.4(10) the development must not begin before the occurrence of one of the following: the receipt by the developer from the local planning authority of a written notice that their prior approval is not required; the receipt by the developer from the local planning authority of a written notice giving their prior approval; or the expiry of 42 days following the date on which the information referred to in sub-paragraph (2) was received by the local planning authority without the local planning authority notifying the developer as to whether prior approval is given or refused. In other words, the prior approval procedure must be Appeal Decision 6008079 2 complied with before the development is commenced, otherwise, it will not be permitted development. 6. Paragraph A.4(7) 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. 7. The main issues are therefore 1) whether the development satisfies the requirements of the Town & Country (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 with regard to being permitted development under the above Order, and 2) if it does, whether or not prior approval should be granted, having regard to the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of any adjoining premises. Reasons for the Recommendation 8. I observed on my visit to the site that foundations had been dug and a concrete floor had been laid in the location where the appeal proposal was to be sited. S56(2) of the Act1, outlines that development shall be taken to be begun on the earliest date on which any ‘material operation comprised in the development’ begins to be carried out. S56(4) sets out that ‘material operations’ includes, amongst other things, any work of construction in the course of the erection of a building; the digging of a trench which is to contain the foundations or part of the foundations of a building. As a matter of fact and degree, the works that have been carried out constitute material operations related to the appeal development. 9. Therefore, given that the development has already begun, it does not constitute a form of development permitted under the terms set out in Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Order. 10. Consequently, it is not now necessary for me to form a view on the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of any adjoining premises. Other Matter 11. I acknowledge the appellant’s reasons for wishing to construct the extension. Whilst there is limited evidence, I have nonetheless considered these in accordance with the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) contained in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 which sets out the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation, and to advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it. I have also had regard to rights conveyed within the Human Rights Act. 12. However, it does not follow from the PSED that the appeal should succeed. The PSED is not a factor in the determination as to whether or not a development constitutes the form of development permitted by the Order. Conclusion and Recommendation 13. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. J Reed APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER 1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Appeal Decision 6008079 3 Inspector’s Decision 14. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. A M Nilsson INSPECTOR