Single storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 14 July 2026 by T Morris BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI Decision by H Jones BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 22 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6011053 3 Maylands Way, Havering, Romford RM3 0BG • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant prior approval under 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). • The appeal is made by Sugith Maniyappan against the Council of the London Borough of Havering. • The application Ref is Y0075.26. • The development proposed is a single storey rear extension. 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. Background and Main Issue 3. The appeal site comprises a semi-detached dwellinghouse situated in a residential area. Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (the GPDO) permits the enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse subject to certain conditions, limitations and restrictions. 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) of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO, but is allowed by paragraph A.1(g), 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. In the Council’s view, the proposal would not be permitted development. This is because the proposed single-storey rear extension would be attached to an existing enlargement in the form of a two-storey rear extension, so the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would have more than one storey and extend beyond the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse. The Council are also of the view that the total enlargement includes single-storey rear extensions making the total enlargements more than 6 metres (m) in depth. For these reasons, the Council consider that the proposal would not comply with Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO. Appeal Decision 6011053 2 6. Consequently, the main issue is whether the proposed development would be permitted development, having regard to the requirements set out within Schedule 2, Part 1 of Class A of the GPDO. Reasons for the Recommendation 7. Paragraph A.1(g) of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO states that for a dwellinghouse not on article 2(3) land or on a site of special scientific interest, development is not permitted by Class A if the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would have a single storey and would: (i) extend beyond the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse by more than 8 metres in the case of a detached dwellinghouse, or 6 metres in the case of any other dwellinghouse; or, (ii) exceed 4 metres in height. 8. Paragraph A.1(i) sets out that development is also not permitted if the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would be within 2m of the boundary of the curtilage of the dwellinghouse, and the height of the eaves of the enlarged part would exceed 3m. 9. Paragraph A.1(ja) then states that development is not permitted if any total enlargement (being the enlarged part together with any existing enlargement of the original dwellinghouse to which it will be joined) exceeds or would exceed the limits set out in sub-paragraphs (e) to (j). This includes paragraphs A.1(g) and A.1 (i) as set out above. 10. Paragraph (ja) was introduced to the GPDO under a 2017 amendment1. The accompanying Explanatory Memorandum outlines that the amendments to Class A remove from permitted development rights, for example, the ability to allow a single- storey extension to be joined to an existing two-storey extension (or vice versa) creating a total enlargement which would not have been permitted under Class A as a single extension. 11. The original dwellinghouse has already been extended with both a first-floor rear extension and a ground-floor rear extension added to it. The evidence indicates the former to be positioned above the existing kitchen and the latter added at its rear. However, the plans of these particular developments are not before me, nor are those of the original dwelling before it was extended. 12. Due in large part to the rendered finish of some sections of the dwelling, the precise locations where these property extensions meet the original elements of the dwelling could not be determined at my site visit. Overall, and factoring in the absence of the aforementioned plans, the evidence before me does not enable the precise extent of the original rear projections to be distinguished from the subsequent extensions. 13. However, given the proposed extension’s position relative to the first-floor extension, and its height, I find there is the very clear potential that the proposed extension would physically join the implemented first-floor extension. Consequently, although the proposed single-storey rear extension itself would only have a maximum height of approximately 2.93m, any adjoinment of it to the first-floor extension means that the totality of the enlargements would be significantly taller. As depicted by the proposed side and rear elevations (drawing no: 26/042/003 Rev A), the existing first- 1 The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) (Amendment) Order 2017/391 Appeal Decision 6011053 3 floor rear extension would have a total height more than twice that of the proposed single-storey rear extension. Consequently, it would inevitably be in excess of the 4m height limit and would fail to comply with paragraph A.1(g). 14. The plans before me, and my own observations on site, also lead me to conclude that the existing first-floor rear extension is within 2m of the boundary of the curtilage of the dwellinghouse and the height of its eaves clearly exceeds 3m. Therefore, by reason of this eaves height and boundary proximity, the total enlargement would fail to comply with paragraph A.1 (i) as well. 15. Paragraph A.4(3) provides that an application made for a determination as to whether prior approval is required for the development proposed may be refused where the proposed development does not comply – or the developer has provided insufficient information to enable it to be established whether the proposed development complies with the conditions, limitations or restrictions that are applicable to such permitted development. 16. For the reasons given above, and even if I were to agree with the appellant that the proposal would not result in a total enlargement beyond the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse by more than 6m, the joining of the proposed extension to the existing first-floor extension, which I consider to be a likely outcome, means that the proposal would exceed the limits set out at both paragraphs A.1(g) and A.1 (i). In turn, it would fail to comply with A.1(ja). Crucially, and in any event, there is insufficient information to enable it to be established that the proposed development would comply with those same limitations. 17. For these reasons, I cannot conclude that the proposed development would be permitted development, having regard to the requirements set out within Schedule 2, Part 1 of Class A of the GPDO. Other Matters 18. The absence of objections from neighbouring properties is not a relevant factor in terms of the main issue in this appeal. Conclusion and Recommendation 19. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. T Morris APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 20. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. H Jones INSPECTOR