Prior approval notification for the construction of a: Single storey side extension at lower ground level. Extension to have a maximum height of 3m at the boundary. Extension to have a maximum length of 4.85m from the parent building principal elevation. 2.4m side extension from the existing outrigger, less than half the width of the property. Existing lean -to rear extension pitched roof changed to a flat roof, with maximum height of 2.7m at the boundary. 1nr rooflight and a green roof over rear extension. Internal reconfiguration to lower ground floor including removal of 2nr

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 14 September 2026 by H Whitfield BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 16 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6012237 123 Benhill Road, Southwark, London SE5 7LZ • 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 & Mrs Iain Carroll & Kathryn Oliver against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Southwark. • The application Ref is 26/AP/1303. • The development proposed is Prior approval notification for the construction of a: Single storey side extension at lower ground level. Extension to have a maximum height of 3m at the boundary. Extension to have a maximum length of 4.85m from the parent building principal elevation. 2.4m side extension from the existing outrigger, less than half the width of the property. Existing lean -to rear extension pitched roof changed to a flat roof, with maximum height of 2.7m at the boundary. 1nr rooflight and a green roof over rear extension. Internal reconfiguration to lower ground floor including removal of 2nr chimney breasts. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matter 2. The Council has referred to development plan policies on its decision notice. However, the principle of development is established by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the GPDO) and the provisions of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO do not require regard to be had to the development plan. Accordingly, I have only had regard to the policies of The Southwark Plan 2019-2036 (the Local Plan) in so far as they are material considerations relevant to the main issue; however, they are not in themselves determinative. Background and Main Issue 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 Appeal Decision 6012237 2 complies with the conditions, limitations or restrictions that are applicable to such permitted development. 5. Paragraph A.4(7) to Part 1 provides that where any owner or occupier of any adjoining premises objects to the proposed development, the prior approval of the local planning authority (LPA) is required as to the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of any adjoining premises. When considering these potential impacts, the LPA is required to take into account any representations made and consider the amenity of all adjoining premises, not just adjoining premises which are the subject of representations. 6. Neither the Council’s decision notice nor the accompanying officer report contends that the appeal scheme fails to comply with the limitations at paragraph A.1. Instead, the Council’s concerns are limited to the effect of the development upon the living conditions of the occupants of 125 Benhill Road. 7. The main issue in this appeal is therefore whether prior approval should be granted having regard to the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupants of 125 Benhill Road in respect of outlook. Reasons 8. The appeal relates to a mid-terraced dwelling located in a predominately residential area containing properties of a similar style and appearance. The dwelling contains a lower ground/basement level and so from the rear it appears to be 3-storeys in height. The northern half of the rear elevation has a three-storey outrigger which adjoins a similar projection on the northern adjoining property (No 121) and a single-storey lean-to range. 9. The appeal scheme proposes a single storey parapet flat roof extension off the rear elevation of the main body of the dwelling. The extension would infill the gap between the side of the three-storey outrigger and the common boundary with 125 Benhill Road to the south. 10. No 125 has a three-storey outrigger of similar proportions to the appeal dwelling on the southern half of its rear elevation which pitches away from the appeal site. On the rear elevation of the main body of No 125, there is one window at lower ground floor which is understood to be the only window serving this property’s kitchen/breakfast room. Adjacent to this window is the common boundary with the appeal site which is formed by a timber fence and planting. The current relationship between this window, the common boundary fence and the property’s own three-storey range results in a degree of enclosure to this kitchen/breakfast room window. 11. The proposed extension would project approximately 4.85m beyond No 125’s kitchen/breakfast room window at a total height of 3m. The plans show the extension would sit considerably above the height of the existing boundary treatment and exceed the top of No 125’s lower ground floor window. Given the relationship this window already has with the property’s own three-storey outrigger, the combined height and depth of the proposed extension would have a hemming-in and overbearing effect on this window, further restricting outlook and peripheral views of the sky. This would result in an adverse sense of enclosure from this habitable room to the detriment of the living conditions of the occupants of this dwelling. Appeal Decision 6012237 3 12. While there is no dispute between the parties that the appeal scheme would comply with the restrictions and limitations under sub-paragraph A.1 of Class A of the GPDO, there remains a requirement to consider the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of any adjoining premises where representations have been made, which is the case in this instance. The fact that the Council has raised no objection in relation to the effects on light to No 125 does not alter my above conclusions. 13. The appellant has referred to an extension approved by the Council at 117 Benhill Road, which they state is larger than the appeal scheme. However, I have not been provided with the specific details of this case or the approved plans and therefore cannot be certain that the two cases are comparable or whether the interrelationship between neighbouring properties is similar. Nevertheless, given the scope of matters for consideration in an application for prior approval, examples of extensions elsewhere do not indicate that the proposal, for which I have identified would result in harm to the amenity of an adjoining property, would be permitted development. 14. For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupants of 125 Benhill Road in respect of outlook and therefore prior approval should be refused. Insofar as it is of relevance, I therefore find that the proposal conflicts with Policy P56 of the Local Plan which seeks to protect outlook and that developments do not cause an unacceptable loss of amenity to present or future occupiers. Conclusion 15. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. H Whitfield INSPECTOR