Single storey rear extension 6m depth

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: 10 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6010215 218 Sutton Road, Walsall WS5 3AH • 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 Zahid Khan against the decision of Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council. • The application Ref is 26/0407. • The development proposed is “Single storey rear extension 6m depth”. 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 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. 5. The Council refused the application as they considered that the proposed development would not comply with Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, paragraphs A.1(j) and A.1(ja) of the GPDO, as it and any existing enlargements would extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse, and have a width greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse. 6. 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 Appeal Decision 6010215 2 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. Main Issue 7. The main issue is whether the proposed development would be granted planning permission by Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO. Reasons for the Recommendation 8. The host dwelling is a two-storey semi-detached house. On my site visit, I observed that the host dwelling has a two-storey rear projection utilising similar cream painted brick elevations, metal roof gutters and dark grey roof tiles as the rest of the property. A two-storey rear projection of a similar width, depth and position in relation to its host property exists at the adjoining semi-detached pair, 216 Sutton Road. 9. From my observations, the plans submitted with the application, and the appellant statement, this two-storey rear projection appears to be an original part of the host dwelling. The proposed extension would be attached to this rear projection and extend beyond its left side wall. Therefore, based on the evidence before me, the proposed development would extend beyond an original side wall and would have a width greater than half the width of the original property, thereby not complying with paragraphs A.1(j) and A.1(ja) of the GPDO. 10. The appellant has submitted that the existing single-storey rear extension that extends beyond the two-storey rear projection is not an original part of the property and is intended to be demolished before the construction of the proposed single- storey rear extension. However, this does not overcome the fact that the proposal would extend beyond the left side wall of the two-storey rear projection which I have found to be original. 11. Proposals must comply with all the limitations and conditions set out in paragraphs A.1, A.2, A.3 and A.4 of Article 3(1), Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO to be permitted development. As the proposed development does not comply with paragraphs A.1(j) and A.1(ja) of the GPDO, it is not therefore permitted development and would not be granted planning permission by Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO. Other Matter 12. As the proposed development is not permitted development there is no requirement to assess its impact on the amenity of adjoining premises. Conclusion and Recommendation 13. 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 Appeal Decision 6010215 3 Inspector’s Decision 14. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. Tamsin Law INSPECTOR