Single storey rear extension

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: 21 August 2026 Appeal Ref: 6009889 35 Holmden Avenue, Wigston, Leicestershire LE18 2EG • 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 Ibrahim Duha against the decision of Oadby and Wigston Borough Council. • The application Ref is 26/00020/HPA. • The development proposed is a single storey rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matter 2. My site visit was scheduled as an access required site visit, although I was not able to proceed on that basis. However, I was able to consider the main issue based on seeing the site and its surrounding context from the road. Main Issue 3. Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the GPDO) allows for the “enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse” subject to a number of limitations, conditions and restrictions. If the various requirements are met, then the proposed works would be “permitted development”. 4. The main issue is therefore whether the proposed extension would constitute permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO. Reasons 5. The appeal property is a semi-detached dwelling situated within a street of similar properties. A modest single-storey store projects to the rear of the dwelling in the north-east corner and is stepped in width. From my site visit observations, and similar structures evident on neighbouring properties, I am satisfied that the store forms part of the original dwelling. 6. The proposed rear extension would be single storey in form, measuring approximately 4.5m wide, projecting approximately 4.115m from the original rear elevation wall, and reaching a maximum height of approximately 2.9m. It would also be sited alongside the side elevation wall to the projecting single-storey store and would therefore comprise both a rear and side extension. 7. There is no dispute between the parties that the proposal complies with the GPDO requirements relating to rear extensions. However, for side extensions Appeal Decision 6009889 2 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. Given the position of the store in relation to the remainder of the dwelling, the appeal therefore turns on whether the projecting width of the store should be included within the measurement for the width of the original dwelling. 8. The Government’s Permitted development rights for householders – Technical Guidance (2019), provides some clarification to the GPDO, and advises that the width of the original dwelling should be measured at its “widest point”. Although attached to the dwelling, the store is narrower than the remainder of the built form and projects laterally only beyond part of the rear elevation. Consequently, there is no continuous built form of the original dwelling encompassing both the projecting store and the remainder of the dwelling. Nor does the guidance suggest that separate elements of a dwelling should be aggregated to establish its “widest point”. 9. Therefore, in this case, although the projecting store would appear to form part of the original dwelling, it does not contribute to the dwelling's width at its widest point. Consequently, the width of the original dwelling at its widest point is approximately 7.287m, not 9.044m as the appellant suggests. On that basis, the 4.5m wide proposed extension would have a width greater than half the width of the original dwelling and thus exceed the limitation set out in paragraph A.1.(j)(iii) of the GPDO and would not constitute permitted development. 10. From the plans and my observations, the height of the proposed extension would not exceed 4 metres, and the extension would not have more than a single storey. Hence there is no breach of the other restrictions for a single storey side extension under A.1.(j)(i) or (ii), but this is academic in light of the breach of A.1.(j)(iii). 11. If the appellant wishes to build an extension of the size shown, they would need to submit an application for planning permission to the Council. Conclusion 12. For the reasons given above, I conclude the proposed single storey extension would not comply with the requirements of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO and would not be permitted development. The appeal is therefore dismissed. K Mee INSPECTOR