Appeal 3325781
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
the erection of an additional storey to an existing dwelling house.
Section 02
Decisions
[name] and B are dismissed.
Section 03
Preliminary Matters
The Government published a revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) in December 2023. Whilst this made certain revisions to aspects of national planning policy, the provisions in respect of the main issue in these cases are largely unchanged. I am therefore satisfied that there is no requirement to seek further submissions on the revised Framework from the parties, and that no party would be disadvantaged by such a course of action.
At the time of my site visit, building works were in progress at the appeal site. These works included the construction of a single storey extension to the rear and the removal of the whole of the main hipped roof of the bungalow. I sought confirmation from the main parties about the planning history of the site as it is presented on the Council’s website. Whilst the Appellant confirmed their opinion on the accuracy of the planning history the Council subsequently Appeal Decisions APP/P5870/D/23/3325777 and APP/P5870/D/23/3325781 indicated that a further two applications1 were associated with the property. I am satisfied that neither of those additional two applications are material to my consideration of the appeal. However, other applications and decisions have some relevance to the appeal, and I shall return to this matter later.
Under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class AA of the GPDO2 planning permission is granted for the enlargement of a dwellinghouse by construction of additional storeys. In the case of dwellinghouses consisting of one storey, this permitted development allowance is limited to the construction of one additional storey immediately above the topmost storey of the dwellinghouse, together with any engineering operations reasonably necessary for the purpose of that construction.
[name].2(3) of Part 1, Class AA of the GPDO requires, as a condition of the permission, that the prior approval of the local planning authority be sought for the matters listed in that paragraph. The Council’s reasons for refusal on both appeals express their objection to the effect of the proposals on the outlook from a neighbouring dwelling, [address]. Additionally, for Appeal B, the Council’s first reason for refusal indicates that it considers the proposed additional storey would not be constructed on the principal part of the dwellinghouse, and thereby fails to meet the requirements given at [name].1.(i) of Part 1, Class AA of the GPDO.
The procedure for applications for prior approval is set out in the GPDO. [name].3.(13) of Part 1, Class AA of the GPDO requires that the development must not begin before the receipt by the applicant from the local planning authority of a written notice giving their prior approval.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is whether the proposals are permitted development having regard to Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class AA of the GPDO.
Section 05
Reasons
The proposals involve the construction of an additional storey to the appeal property, a detached bungalow. The evidence before me, the information made publicly available on the Council’s online Planning Register, and the responses to my request for clarification regarding the planning history of the appeal site, confirms the status of, and decisions made by the Council on several previous applications, including those made relatively recently.
The recent decisions made by the Council include confirmation3 that the erection of a 7.6 metre single-storey rear extension would not require the prior approval of the local planning authority under the GPDO. From the information I have seen, and from my observations on site, the 7.6 metre rear extension would appear to be that which was under construction at the time of my visit. Subsequent to that decision, the Council granted a ‘Lawful Development Certificate for a [name] or Development’4 for development described in 1 SUT/[address] Banstead [postcode] - The proposed layout of seven building plots. (Nos 19,21,23,31,33,35,37); and SUT/20165 [name] [address] Banstead [postcode] - The erection of a detached bungalow and private garage. 2 The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the GPDO). 3 Council Ref. DM2023/00677 dated 31 May 2023. 4 Council Ref. DM2023/01139 dated 18 September 2023 Appeal Decisions APP/P5870/D/23/3325777 and APP/P5870/D/23/3325781 the associated application as ‘A Hip to gable roof. Erection of a dormer over the rear slope’.
Having regard to the information provided to me, and the recent planning history of the site, apart from both appeals currently before me, I have seen nothing to demonstrate that any of the proposals described in the planning history would involve or necessitate the removal of the whole of the main roof of the bungalow. It therefore seems to me, on the balance of probability, that the proposals the subject of both appeals before me have commenced.
That being the case, both proposals fail to meet the requirements set out at [name].3.(13) of Part 1, Class AA of the GPDO. Accordingly, given that development has already begun, prior approval cannot be given, and I find that the proposals are not permitted development having regard to Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class AA of the GPDO. I therefore have no reason to consider further the Council’s reason for refusing prior approval in respect of the effect of the proposals on the outlook from [address], nor is it necessary for me to consider further the Council’s first reason for refusal in respect of Appeal B given my conclusions on the main issue.
Section 06
Other Matters
I note that concerns have been expressed in representations made in respect of the proposal the subject of Appeal B. However, given my findings as above, any further consideration of those matters would not affect my conclusions on the main issue. The same also applies to any other planning merits of the schemes which, having regard to the conditions and limitations set out in Part 1, Class AA of the GPDO, do not fall to be considered as part of these particular appeals.
Section 07
Conclusion
For the reasons given above, both appeals are 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 3172No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 18 April 2024Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 29 February 2024 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3325781
- Application reference
- DM2023/00674
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- London Borough of Sutton
- Planning authority code
- E09000029
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
- Lead
Site and development
Published appeal-site measurements and planning designations, without the withheld precise location fields.
- Site area
- Not recorded
- Floor space
- 82 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
- 11 July 2023
- Valid date
- 11 July 2023
- Start date
- 26 October 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 19 June 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 18 April 2024
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
- 49695
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:27
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21