Single storey extension, 4.5m from the original dwelling house 3.5m high 2.7m eaves

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 4 August 2026 by K Mee BA(Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 26 August 2026 Appeal Ref: 6009160 1034 Melton Road, Syston, Leicestershire LE7 2NN • 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 Shashikant Shashikant against the decision of Charnwood Borough Council. • The application Ref is P/26/0277/2. • The development proposed is described as: single storey extension, 4.5m from the original dwelling house 3.5m high 2.7m eaves. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Applications for Costs 2. An application for costs was made by Mr Shashikant Shashikant against Charnwood Borough Council, and this is the subject of a separate decision. Preliminary Matter 3. The Council refused the application on the basis of the impact on the amenity of a neighbouring property, pursuant to paragraph A.4.(9) of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the GPDO). However, the Council has subsequently raised concerns on whether the proposal would be permitted development having specific regard to the limitations at paragraph A.1.(j)(iii). The appellant has been afforded an opportunity to comment on this matter. Notwithstanding the reasons given on the Council’s decision notice, it is necessary for me, before determining whether prior approval should be given, to firstly consider whether the requirements set out in the GPDO for development to be permitted under Class A would be met. Main Issues 4. Therefore, the main issues are firstly, whether the proposal would amount to permitted development, and if so, the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers at 1032 Melton Road, with particular regard to outlook, daylight and sunlight. Reasons 5. The appeal property comprises a semi-detached dwelling situated in a residential area. Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO allows for the “enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse” subject to a number of Appeal Decision 6009160 2 limitations, conditions and restrictions. If the various requirements are met, then the proposed works would be “permitted development”. 6. The proposal comprises a single-storey extension approximately 8.2m wide, projecting approximately 4.5m, with an overall height of 3.5m and a maximum eaves height of approximately 2.7m. The extension would be sited at the rear of the property replacing part of the existing rear conservatory which currently projects beyond the side elevation of the original dwellinghouse. It would therefore comprise both a rear and side extension. 7. There is no dispute between the parties that the proposal complies with Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A.1.(g) of the GPDO relating to rear extensions. However, development is not permitted by Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A.1.(j)(iii) if the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse and would have a width greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse. 8. The submitted plan before me illustrates that only part of the existing conservatory would be removed and replaced by the proposed extension. For the purposes of assessing whether the proposal constitutes permitted development, the entire enlarged part of the dwelling must be considered, including the retained part of the conservatory. Taken together, the enlarged part would therefore span the full width of the plot. On this basis it would exceed half the width of the original dwellinghouse and fail to comply with the limitation in paragraph A.1.(j)(iii) of the GPDO. No evidence has been provided to the contrary. 9. Consequently, and notwithstanding that the proposal may comply with the other limitations of paragraph A.1. of the GPDO, the conflict with paragraph A.1.(j)(iii) means that the proposed development is not permitted. As the proposal does not constitute permitted development, I have no need to consider the amenity of the neighbours or to consider planning policy. Other Matters 10. I have considered the appellant’s reference to a fallback position involving a smaller extension that could be carried out under permitted development rights, although limited evidence has been provided in support of this. I also note the appellant’s submissions concerning the technical assessment of daylight and sunlight. However, neither the fallback position nor the arguments relating to light alter my findings. As it is unnecessary to assess amenity impacts for the purposes of this appeal, these matters have no bearing on its outcome. Conclusion 11. For the reasons given, I conclude that the proposal is not permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO. The appeal is therefore dismissed. K Mee INSPECTOR