Single storey rear extension. Not connected to the existing garage to the rear. Extension to have pitched roof with brick and render walls to match existing house

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 15 July 2026 by I Ingledew BSc (Hons) Decision by T Law BSc MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 22 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6008393 117 Lonnen Road, Dorset, Colehill BH21 7AU • 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 & Mrs Davies against the decision of Dorset Council. • The application Ref is P/PALH/2026/00711. • The development proposed is Single storey rear extension. Not connected to the existing garage to the rear. Extension to have pitched roof with brick and render walls to match existing house. 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. 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. 5. Paragraph A.4(7) to Part 1 requires the local planning authority to assess the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of the adjoining premises, taking into account any representations received. Following the Council’s notification, two comments were received from Wimborne Civic Society and the occupiers of 115 Lonnen Road. Neither of these representations included concerns relating to amenity, instead referring to matters outside of the scope of this appeal. Additionally, the Council did not raise concerns regarding the effect on the amenity of the occupiers of any adjoining premises. From what I saw on site, I have no reason to disagree with this conclusion. Appeal Decision 6008393 2 6. The plans included with this appeal suggest the addition of a dormer to the roof of the existing property however are not included within the description of the development and the application was only made under Class A of the GPDO for the enlargement of a dwellinghouse. For the interest of clarity, I have not assessed the dormer as part of this appeal. Main Issue 7. The main issue is whether the proposed development would be permitted development under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO. Reasons for the Recommendation 8. The appeal property is a two storey, detached dwelling. At its rear elevation, the property hosts a small single storey projection which the Council and appellant are in agreement is original to the host property. 9. The proposal would extend to a depth of approximately 5m and would have a width of approximately 5.86m that would span almost the width of the original dwellinghouse. 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 to a width greater than half the width of the property, therefore not constituting permitted development. 10. The appellant puts forward that the proposal is a rear extension and therefore the Council’s judgement based on paragraph A.1(j) is a misinterpretation of the GPDO. Although the proposal involves a rear extension, the proposal also extends from a side elevation. The technical guidance1 defines a side elevation as any wall that cannot be identified as being a front wall or rear wall, with the diagram included in the technical guidance for A.1(j), although not outright demonstrating an example of permitted development, indicating how to identify the walls forming a side elevation. 11. In this instance, this applies to the side elevation forming the single storey projection to the rear of the property. Where an extension is beyond any side wall and fills the area between a side elevation and a rear wall, then the restrictions in paragraphs A.1(g) and A.1(j) will apply. Although the rear aspect of the extension accords with the limitations and restrictions of A.1(g) in terms of height and depth, it fails to accord with the width restrictions of Paragraph A.1(j). Even though paragraph A.1(g) is ahead in the structure of the GPDO, this does not denote a hierarchy or preference with a proposal required to meet all limitations, conditions and restrictions to which it is subject to. 12. Additionally, the diagram shown in the technical guidance for interpreting paragraph A.1(g), that the appellant has included in their statement, where a rear elevation is stepped, does not demonstrate the wrap around proposal before me which includes the filling in of the area between the side elevation and rear wall. This diagram is therefore not applicable in interpreting this particular case. 1 Permitted development rights for householders: Technical Guidance (September 2019) Appeal Decision 6008393 3 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 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 agree with the reasoning and recommendation. On that basis the appeal is dismissed. T Law INSPECTOR