Single storey rear extension 5.615m
📊
See the success rate & inspector analytics
Free to view — just create an account, no payment needed.
Sign Up FreeTechnical Issues Heatmap
Fallback Position
Extensions
Inspector’s Reasoning
Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 21 July 2026 by A Chan Markovitz BA (Hons)
Decision by Tamsin Law BSc MSc MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 22 September 2026
Appeal Ref: 6009960
22 Woodside Close, Walsall, West Midlands
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 James Pettitt against the decision of Walsall Metropolitan Borough
Council.
The application Ref is 26/0181.
The development proposed is “single storey rear extension 5.615m”.
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.
Applications for costs
3. An application for costs was made by Mr James Pettitt against Walsall Metropolitan
Borough Council. This is subject to a separate decision.
Preliminary Matters
4. 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.
5. 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.
Main Issue
6. The main issue is whether the development applied for would be granted planning
permission by Article 3, Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO.
Appeal Decision 6009960
2
Reasons for the Recommendation
7. Permitted development rights granted through the GPDO are subject to a number
of conditions and limitations, including those set out in Article 3, Schedule 2, Part 1,
Class A, paragraph A.4(10) of the GPDO. This paragraph states that the
development applied for must not begin before either the Council notifies the
appellant that prior approval is not required, the Council notifies the appellant that
prior approval is given, or the Council does not notify the appellant as to whether
prior approval is given or refused within 42 days from the date that the application
for the development was received by the Council. The proposed development
cannot benefit from permitted development rights if the conditions set out in
paragraph A.4(10) are not met and work begins before confirmation has been
given, or a decision has failed to be given, within the 42-day timeframe.
8. The Council notified the appellant that prior approval was refused on 19 March
2026. There is no dispute between the parties that the Council notified the
appellant that prior approval was refused within 42 days from the date that the
application was received by the Council. From the evidence before me, I see no
reason to disagree.
9. I undertook my site visit to assess the appeal on 21 July 2026. On my site visit, I
observed that development of a single-storey rear extension, as applied for, had
begun. It appeared that a foundation had been laid, and walls constructed around
it, of the form and scale of the single-storey rear extension shown on the submitted
plans and described in the application form. Given that prior approval must be
given before work begins, it is not possible for prior approval to be given
retrospectively through this appeal, and the appeal can be dismissed on the basis
that the development as applied for has begun.
10. The Council refused the application as they considered that the proposed
development would not comply with Article 3, Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A,
paragraphs A.1(j), A.1(ja) and A.4(3)(b) of the GPDO. As development has begun, I
cannot further assess the development’s compliance with the GPDO.
11. Consequently, as development has begun, the development applied for is not
permitted development and would not be granted planning permission by Article
3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO.
Conclusion and Recommendation
12. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I
recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.
A Chan Markovitz
APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER
Inspector’s Decision
13. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on
that basis the appeal is allowed.
Tamsin Law INSPECTOR
£
Costs decision section
Costs Decision
Site visit made on 21 July 2026 by A Chan Markovitz BA (Hons)
Decision by Tamsin Law BSc MSc MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 22 September 2026
Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: 6009960
22 Woodside Close, Walsall, West Midlands
The application is made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sections 78, 322 and
Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5).
The application is made by Mr James Pettitt for a full award of costs against Walsall Metropolitan
Borough Council.
The appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for “single storey rear extension 5.615m”.
Decision
1. The application for an award of costs is allowed in the terms set out below.
Procedure
2. An Appeal Planning Officer has set out the recommendation below, to which the
Inspector has had regard before deciding the application.
Reasons
3. Parties in planning appeals normally meet their own expenses. However, the
Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that costs may be awarded against a
party who has behaved unreasonably and thereby caused the party applying for
costs to incur unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process. The PPG
states that although costs can only be awarded in relation to unnecessary or
wasted expense at the appeal or other proceeding, behaviour and actions at the
time of the planning application can be taken into account in the Inspector’s
consideration of whether or not costs should be awarded.
4. The PPG lists examples of unreasonable behaviour which may give rise to an
award of costs against a Council. These include lack of co-operation with the other
party or parties; and refusing to enter into pre-application discussions, or to provide
reasonably requested information, when a more helpful approach would probably
have resulted in either the appeal being avoided altogether, or the issues to be
considered being narrowed, thus reducing the expense associated with the appeal.
5. In 2022, the applicant’s prior approval application1 (the 2022 application) for a
single-storey rear extension at 22 Woodside Close was granted. The Council was
aware of this planning history, as they mention it in their officer report when
determining the applicant’s recent prior approval application2 (the 2026 application)
for a single-storey rear extension at the same site and of the same scale as the
previously granted development.
1 22/1220
2 26/0181
Costs Decision 6009960
2
6. The Council refused the 2026 application and sent a decision notice on 19 March
2026. They gave sufficient explanation as to why the 2026 application was refused,
but did not provide any information as to why there was a different outcome to the
2022 application when both applications were for the same development.
7. The applicant sought to understand why this situation was different and made
numerous attempts to contact the Council for further information. The Council were
given ample opportunity to discuss the outcome of the 2026 application and provide
the further information that the applicant was seeking, but they did not. The
applicant then appealed the decision on 19 May 2026. The Council only confirmed
that they had incorrectly determined the 2022 application in their costs rebuttal sent
in after the applicant had appealed the decision.
8. If the Council had engaged with the applicant in a timely manner, then the applicant
would not have had to appeal the decision in order to understand why the 2026
application had been refused. The Council did not co-operate with the applicant
and did not provide reasonably requested information, when a more helpful
approach would probably have resulted in the appeal being avoided altogether.
9. For the reasons given above, the Council have behaved unreasonably and thereby
caused the applicant to incur unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal
process. A full award of costs against the Council is therefore warranted.
Costs Order
10. In exercise of the powers under section 250(5) of the Local Government Act 1972
and Schedule 6 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended, and all
other enabling powers in that behalf, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Walsall
Metropolitan Borough Council shall pay to Mr James Pettitt, the costs of the appeal
proceedings described in the heading of this decision; such costs to be assessed in
the Senior Courts Costs Office if not agreed.
The applicant is now invited to submit to Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council, to
whom a copy of this decision has been sent, details of those costs with a view to
reaching agreement as to the amount.
A Chan Markovitz
APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER
Inspector’s Decision
11. I have considered all the submitted evidence and the Appeal Planning Officer’s
report and concur that a full award of costs is justified in this case.
Tamsin Law
INSPECTOR
Expert Representation
Don't leave your appeal to chance.
Inspectors are inconsistent. We build a technical defense using precedents from our 182,000+ case archive.
No win, no fee Householder representation — you only pay if you win.