Proposed single storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 17 August 2026 by A Chan Markovitz BA (Hons) Decision by Tamsin Law BSc MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 24 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6012509 10 St Aubyns Avenue, Hounslow, TW3 3TG • 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 Amir Khan against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Hounslow. • The application Ref is PA/2026/0995. • The development proposed is “proposed 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. Main Issue 3. 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 Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 as amended (the GPDO). Reasons for the Recommendation 4. Under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of 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. Paragraph A.4(7) to Part 1 requires the local planning authority to assess the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of all adjoining premises, taking into account any representations received. 6. In its decision notice, the Council refused the application on the basis that the proposed development would not comply with Article 3, Schedule 2, Part 1, Class Appeal Decision 6012509 2 A, paragraph A.4(7) of the GPDO due to its unacceptable impact on the amenity of adjoining premises. However, the officer report notes that the Proposed Roof Plan indicates that the roof of the proposed rear extension would be joined to that of the existing side extension. Were the roofs to be joined, the proposal would not comply with Article 3, Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, paragraphs A.1(j) and A.1(ja) of the GPDO and would not therefore constitute permitted development. This is because the proposal, together with the existing enlargement to which it would be joined, would extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse and would have a combined width exceeding half the width of the original dwellinghouse. 7. In their statement, the appellant submits that part of the existing side extension would be removed so to create a gap between the proposed rear extension and the existing side extension. The Proposed Ground Floor Plan supports this submission, showing that sections of the existing side extension would be demolished to prevent a physical connection. However, the Proposed Roof Plan conflicts with this submission, as it does not indicate that any part of the existing side extension's roof would be removed and does not demonstrate that the two extensions would remain separate at roof level. Furthermore, it is unclear whether the Proposed Rear Elevation supports the appellant's position. While it shows part of the existing side extension's roof removed, it also appears to show the upper sections of the two roofs joined. 8. The inconsistency between the Proposed Roof Plan and the Proposed Rear Elevation, together with the ambiguity surrounding the relationship between the proposed rear extension and the existing side extension at roof level, introduces an evidential inconsistency that means that there is insufficient information to establish whether the proposed development would comply with paragraphs A.1(j) and A.1(ja) of the GPDO, and therefore constitute permitted development. 9. For these reasons, the proposed development would not be granted planning permission by Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO. Other Matters 10. As there is insufficient information to establish whether the proposed development would be permitted development, there is no requirement to assess its impact on the amenity of adjoining premises. Conclusion and Recommendation 11. 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 12. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. Tamsin Law INSPECTOR