Appeal 3285858
Public case and site metadata stored from the official casework database, including fields that were empty in the source release.
A clearer next step
See how Inspectors approached issues like yours
Bring your planning decision into a private workspace. We separate the disputed points, then match them with source-located Inspector reasoning from similar appeals.
- See which issues the decision appears to turn on
- Compare the facts and open the full appeal records
One private comparison
How the refusal review worksOne-off service · No subscription
Similar appeals are evidence to inspect, not a prediction of your outcome.
Official decision document
The decision, section by section
7 sections
Read the development description and the Inspector’s text from the official decision PDF in source order. Source headings are retained where available. Personal and contact details are removed by an automated privacy filter; this is source material, not Rules for You analysis.
Section 01
Development description
described on the decision notice and appeal form as ‘[name] - Enlargement of a dwellinghouse by construction of one additional storey to a maximum height of 7.83m’.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Preliminary Matters
I have taken the description of development above from the Council’s decision notice and the appeal form as it is more succinct than the description included in the planning application form.
Section 04
Main Issue
Whether or not the proposed additional storey is permitted under the above Order.
Section 05
Reasons
Development is not permitted by Schedule 2, Part 1, Class AA (i) of the above Order if any additional storey is constructed other than on the principal part of the dwellinghouse.
The "principal part", in relation to a dwellinghouse, is expressly defined in the GPDO (paragraph AA4. (1)). It means ‘the main part of the dwellinghouse excluding any front, side or rear extension of a lower height, whether this forms part of the original dwellinghouse or is a subsequent addition’. That is of critical importance to this appeal.
The proposed additional storey would be constructed above the original dwellinghouse. I accept that the original bungalow was built as a single building and that there is consistent eaves height throughout the property. I also accept that the original property was designed to have a continuous rear roof slope.
That said, one element of the property, beside the principal bulk and floorspace of [address], is of a lower height than other elements of the property. The ridge height of that minor element of the property, which comprises the entrance hall and bedroom one, has a slightly lower ridge height than the remainder of the original dwelling.
I accept that it contains the entrance door and hall, and therefore understand the appellant’s contention that it cannot logically be conceived of as an ‘extension’. However as set out above, that word has a specific meaning within the terms of the GPDO differing from the ordinary usage of that word. Thus, within the specific terms of the GPDO, given there is a minor side element to No 1 of a lower height than the bulk of the property, I nevertheless find that the proposed addition is not permitted development under the GPDO.
As the proposal does not constitute ‘permitted development’ I have no need to consider the amenity of the neighbours or to consider planning policy.
Section 06
Other Matters
I note the appellant’s reference to a decision made by Elmbridge Borough Council on a similar case. Whilst acknowledging the Council’s concluded, in that instance, that the proposed development would comply with the provisions, conditions and limitations of the Order, I have come to a different view on the current appeal based on the individual facts of the case before me.
Section 07
Conclusion
For the reasons given, the appeal is dismissed.
Planning inspector and document dates
The official casework attribution is grouped under a one-way keyed hash and shown only by its local identifier. Decision-letter dates and page references are extracted by fixed first-page rules and checked against that authoritative record.
Appeal Decision
- Extracted inspector · page 1
- Inspector attribution ID 955No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 16 February 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 4 January 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3285858
- Application reference
- 5/2021/2079
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- St Albans City Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000240
Casework details
The casework, procedure, development and linking details supplied by the official record.
- Casework type
- Householder (HAS)
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development type
- Householder developments
- Appeal type reason
- 3. Refused prior approval of permitted development rights
- Appeal reason
- Refusal
- Type detail
- Planning Appeals - Full
- Jurisdiction
- Transferred
- Link status
- Not Linked
Site and development
Published appeal-site measurements and planning designations, without the withheld precise location fields.
- Site area
- Not recorded
- Floor space
- 79 m²
- Number of residences
- 0
- Site in Green Belt
- Yes
- Agricultural holding
- No
- Affects setting of a listed building
- Not recorded
- Historic building grant made
- Not recorded
- Relates to a conservation area
- Not recorded
- Flooding is an issue
- Not recorded
- Site within an AONB
- Not recorded
- Site within an SSSI
- Not recorded
Decision and dates
The published outcome and every imported case date.
- Official decision
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 29 October 2021
- Valid date
- 29 October 2021
- Start date
- 6 December 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 24 August 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 16 February 2022
Case administration
Published recovery, call-in, costs and enforcement information for this case.
- Redetermined
- No
- Bespoke
- No
- Date recovered
- Not recorded
- Date not recovered or derecovered
- Not recorded
- Call-in date
- Not recorded
- Costs applied for
- Not recorded
- Enforcement grounds count
- Not recorded
- Enforcement grounds
- Not recorded
Source and catalogue history
When this record appeared in the rolling official release and when the catalogue stored it.
- Source
- Planning Inspectorate casework database
- Source data system
- Horizon
- Dataset status
- Current release
- Catalogue record ID
- 10715
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:25
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21