Appeal 3369347
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
3 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
single storey rear extension (Depth 6m, Maximum height of extension 3m, Height to eaves 3m).
Section 02
Decision
Appeal A is allowed and prior approval is deemed to be granted under the provisions of Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, [name].4. of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) for a single storey rear extension (Depth 6m, Maximum height of extension 3m, Height to eaves 3m) at [site address] , in accordance with the application Ref 25/00543/PARES made on 15 May 2025, and the details submitted with it pursuant to Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, paragraph A.4(2).
Appeal B is allowed and prior approval is deemed to be granted under the provisions of Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, [name].4. of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) for a single storey rear extension (Depth 6m, Maximum height of extension 3m, Height to eaves 3m) at [site address] , in accordance with the application Ref 25/00544/PARES made on 15 May 2025, and the details submitted with it pursuant to Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, paragraph A.4(2). Appeal Decisions APP/B0230/D/25/3369347, APP/B0230/D/25/3369351
Section 03
Reasons
[name].1.(g) of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO) permits the enlargement of a detached dwellinghouse by the erection of a single storey extension that extends no more than 8 metres from the rear of the original dwellinghouse, or 6 metres in the case of any other dwellinghouse subject to the process of prior approval set out at [name].4. being followed.
[name].4.(10)(c) outlines that the development subject to the prior approval process must not begin before the expiry of 42 days following the date on which the required prior approval information was received by the local planning authority without the local planning authority notifying the developer as to whether prior approval is given or refused.
The effect of this is that where an application is made for a determination as to whether prior approval is required, the applicant can proceed with the development if the Local Planning Authority does not make a determination or notify the appellant of their decision within the statutory 42 day period. Prior approval is deemed to be granted.
The applications, the subject of these appeals, were received by the Council on 16 May 2025. The decision notices issued by the Council are both dated 07 July 2025, which falls outside of the statutory 42 day period beginning 16 May 2025. There is limited evidence before me to indicate the information required by the appellant, as set out in paragraph A.4 (2) of the GPDO, was not all received by the Council on 16 May 2025.
As the Council failed to notify the appellant of their decision within the requisite 42 day period as to whether prior approval was given or refused it means that prior approval is deemed to be granted. A neighbour consultation is therefore not required.
The failure of the Council to validate the application and determine it within the statutory period means that I cannot consider whether the development would otherwise be permitted development under the GPDO. However, this does not mean that carrying out the development would be lawful. The development can only lawfully proceed if carried out in accordance with the conditions and limitations imposed on the planning permission granted by the GPDO. It is for the appellant to satisfy themselves that the development conforms with all relevant conditions and limitations of the GPDO. If it does not, the GPDO does not grant it planning permission and the development, if constructed, may be at risk of enforcement action by the Council.
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 5200No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 3 September 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 2 September 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3369347
- Application reference
- 25/00543/PARES
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Luton Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E06000032
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
- Unknown
- 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
- Not recorded
- Number of residences
- 0
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- Not recorded
- 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
- Allowed
- Decision category
- Allowed
- Received date
- 16 July 2025
- Valid date
- 16 July 2025
- Start date
- 24 July 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 7 July 2025
- Appeal decision date
- 3 September 2025
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
- 75736
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:28
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21