Appeal 6004651
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
5 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 with a depth of 6.00 metres, highest point of 3.15 metres and height at the eaves of 3.00 metres. Demolish existing extension and bay window.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
This appeal relates to an application for prior approval. However, it is relevant to consider and determine whether the development complies with the applicable conditions and limitations of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (GPDO). I have sought the main parties’ comments on this matter.
The main issue in this case is therefore whether the proposed development would be permitted by Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO.
Section 04
Reasons
The plans show an existing single storey outrigger at this property with a part pitched and part flat roof which houses part of the kitchen and an outside toilet. At the site visit I saw that an extension had been erected around it which is not shown, although the outrigger described above remained evident. It is annotated as an ‘existing extension’ on the submitted plans. However, there appear to be numerous other matching outriggers along this row of houses, including at the adjoining no 85 and the history of the site indicates there was a rear projection original to the property. Taking into account all the above, based on the evidence in this case, this is part of the original dwelling.
Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, paragraph A.1 (j) (iii) of the GPDO states that development would not be permitted if the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse, and would have a width greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse. The proposed development would demolish the outrigger and the bay window. However, the limitations to permitted development are based on the original dwellinghouse and apply if part of the original is removed.
The proposed rear extension would be the full width of the dwellinghouse, 6m deep and up to 3.15m high with a flat roof. Its footprint would include development to the side of the original outrigger. Therefore, as the proposed extension would extend beyond the line of an original side elevation, even though that wall would be demolished as part of the proposed development, the restrictions in A.1.(j) would apply. The extension would have a width greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse. As such it would not meet the limitation in paragraph A.1 (j) (iii) of the GPDO.
Consequently, for the reasons set out above, the proposed development would not be permitted by Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO. As the appeal scheme is not permitted development it is unnecessary to proceed to consider the prior approval matters.
Section 05
Conclusion
For the reasons given above the appeal should be 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 357No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 8 June 2026Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 21 May 2026 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 6004651
- Application reference
- 3463/25
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- London Borough of Redbridge
- Planning authority code
- E09000026
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
- Not recorded
- Appeal reason
- refused
- Type detail
- Prior Approval
- Jurisdiction
- No Jurisdiction Associated
- Link status
- Not recorded
Site and development
Published appeal-site measurements and planning designations, without the withheld precise location fields.
- Site area
- 0 hectares
- Floor space
- 200 m²
- Number of residences
- Not recorded
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- Not recorded
- Affects setting of a listed building
- Yes
- 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
- 5 February 2026
- Valid date
- 5 February 2026
- Start date
- 13 February 2026
- Planning authority decision date
- 14 January 2026
- Appeal decision date
- 8 June 2026
Case administration
Published recovery, call-in, costs and enforcement information for this case.
- Redetermined
- Not recorded
- Bespoke
- Not recorded
- Date recovered
- Not recorded
- Date not recovered or derecovered
- Not recorded
- Call-in date
- Not recorded
- Costs applied for
- No
- 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
- Back Office
- Dataset status
- Current release
- Catalogue record ID
- 90001
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:29
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21