This case concerned a successful appeal against a refusal of prior approval for a single-storey rear extension under permitted development.
Since 2013, permitted development rights have allowed homeowners to construct ground-floor rear extensions of up to six metres on terraced and semi-detached houses, subject to a prior approval process. Unlike most other forms of permitted development, these extensions require the local authority to notify adjoining neighbours before development can proceed.
Where no objections are received, the council has no power to refuse the proposal and must confirm that prior approval is not required. Where objections are made, however, the council must assess whether the extension would result in an unacceptable impact on the amenity of adjoining occupiers.
The council’s decision
In this case, the proposal was for a six-metre rear extension to a standard terraced house. Objections were received from neighbouring occupiers and the council refused prior approval on the basis that the extension was too long and would result in harm to neighbouring properties.
The refusal focused on the perceived impact of the extension on outlook and amenity, despite the fact that the proposal was single-storey and fell within the dimensional limits set out in the permitted development legislation.
The appeal and inspector’s findings
The refusal was appealed. At appeal, it was demonstrated that the council’s assessment overstated the likely impacts of the proposal.
The inspector agreed that the extension would be single-storey in form and of limited height. They noted that it would not project significantly above the existing boundary treatment and would sit comfortably within the garden environment.
The inspector also took account of orientation, observing that the neighbouring gardens were south-facing. As a result, the proposal would not give rise to an unacceptable loss of light. When assessed properly against the limited matters that can be considered under the prior approval regime, the inspector concluded that the extension would not cause significant harm to neighbouring amenity.
The appeal was therefore allowed and prior approval granted.
Key points from the decision
This case highlights the narrow scope of the prior approval process for larger rear extensions. Where proposals comply with the relevant dimensional limits, the sole question is whether there would be a significant adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining occupiers.
It also reflects a wider pattern seen in prior approval appeals, where councils take a cautious approach once objections are received, but inspectors are often more measured when assessing the actual relationship between the extension and neighbouring properties.
A similar conclusion was reached in another recent appeal involving refusal of prior approval for a single-storey rear extension in Waltham Forest, where the inspector again found that the council had overstated the impact on neighbouring amenity.
We have written elsewhere on how to decide whether to appeal a refusal of planning permission in Waltham Forest.
