Single storey rear extension with garage conversion

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 23 June 2026 by I Ingledew BSc (Hons) Decision by L McKay MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 27 July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6008187 19 Centenary Lane, Wednesbury, West Midlands WS10 7UD • 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 Jaspal Sikand against the decision of Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council. • The application Ref is 26/0140. • The development proposed is a single storey rear extension with garage conversion. 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. 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. 4. Since it is Article 3(1) of the GPDO which permits the classes of development set out in Schedule 2, an application for prior approval, or for a determination as to whether prior approval is required, is not an application for planning permission. It is an application made to comply with a ‘pre-commencement’ condition attached to that permission under the relevant Class. 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 under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO. Appeal Decision 6008187 2 Reasons for the Recommendation 7. The appeal property is a three storey, narrow, semi-detached property with its principal elevation facing onto Centenary Lane, with a side and rear elevation facing onto a public park. A detached garage currently exists to the rear and side of the appeal property. 8. The proposal would extend across most of the rear elevation of the original property and link to the existing garage. This would involve connecting the side wall of the dwelling to the side wall of the garage. 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. The proposed extension would project beyond a wall that forms the side elevation of the house and would extend more than half the width of the original dwellinghouse, therefore would not comply with paragraph A.1(j). 9. Additionally, there are discrepancies between the plans and application form as to the height of the proposed extension. The appellant has acknowledged these discrepancies and that the measurements of the proposed extension do not meet the limitations and conditions of the GPDO. Consequently, I have taken the Council’s measurements provided within the officer’s report. Paragraph A.1(j) requires that an extension extending beyond a wall forming a side elevation must not exceed 4 metres in height. The maximum height of the extension, where it links the dwelling to the garage, would measure approximately 4.7m in height, exceeding the limitations of the Order. 10. While the appellant contends that the discrepancies are purely administrative issues, the nature of a prior notification under Class A is that it involves a technical assessment of compliance with the legislation. Clear, unambiguous plans are necessary because any approval would tie the development to precise details. The fact that there are conflicts between the documents submitted introduces an evidential inconsistency that goes directly to whether the development falls within the limitations of Class A. Therefore, it has not been demonstrated that the proposal satisfies the limitations of Class A. 11. 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 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. Other Matters 12. The appellant contends that planning harm and material considerations should be taken into account when considering the scheme and has brought my attention to planning permission granted for a similar rear and side extension scheme1. However, this type of appeal requires an assessment to be made based on the limitations and conditions of the relevant Class of the GPDO. The technical assessment required against the legislation does not allow for the consideration of the planning merits or balancing of material considerations. In this respect, it is fundamentally different to an application for planning permission. Consequently, these are not matters that weigh in favour of allowing the appeal. 1 25/0719 Appeal Decision 6008187 3 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. I Ingledew APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 14. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. L McKay INSPECTOR