Demolition of existing conservatory and Erection of new Single storey extension 5.0m deep

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 23 June 2026 by A Chan Markovitz BA (Hons) Decision by Tamsin Law BSc MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 10 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6008815 514 Downham Way, Lewisham, Bromley BR1 5HP • 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 Vitali Binzaru against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Lewisham. • The application Ref is DC/26/143300. • The development proposed is “Demolition of existing conservatory and Erection of new Single storey extension 5.0m deep”. 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, paragraph A.4 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) for the demolition of existing conservatory and erection of new single storey extension 5.0m deep at 514 Downham Way, Lewisham, Bromley BR1 5HP in accordance with the application, Ref DC/26/143300, and the details submitted with it including plan no Proposed Block Plan, pursuant to Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, paragraph A.4(2) of the GPDO. 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 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. Appeal Decision 6008815 2 Main Issue 5. The main issue is whether the proposed development would be granted planning permission by Article 3, Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO. Reasons for the Recommendation 6. The Council refused the application as they considered that the proposed development would not comply with Article 3, Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, paragraph A.1(k)(iii) of the GPDO, as it would include alterations to a chimney and a side door. The proposed development for which prior approval is sought is for the erection of a single storey rear extension, and whilst the plans show other works these do not form part of my considerations in this appeal. Therefore, the proposed single storey rear extension would comply with paragraph A.1(k)(iii) of the GPDO. 7. There is no dispute between the parties that the proposed single storey rear extension would comply with all other limitations and conditions set out in paragraphs A.1, A.2, A.3 and A.4 of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO. From the evidence before me, I see no reason to disagree. 8. No objections to the proposed development were received from any neighbour and therefore the prior approval matter of amenity is not engaged and there is no requirement for prior approval. 9. Consequently, the proposed development would be granted planning permission by Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO subject to the conditions set out in paragraph A.4(2). Conclusion and Recommendation 10. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed and prior approval is not required. A Chan Markovitz APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 11. 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 allowed. T Law INSPECTOR