London Borough of Barking and Dagenham appeal evidence
Refused over permitted development in Barking and Dagenham?
See which GPDO requirements stopped the selected appeals and which local examples met prior-approval rules.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 5 of 151
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 3
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 2
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 4
- of 5 matched records
AI-assisted. Cited sources and wording were checked before publication. Based on 5 source-linked examples shown below. Review method and limits.
Planning Data area point: Barking and Dagenham LPA (51.543977, 0.133197). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
London Borough of Barking and Dagenham appeal findings
GPDO Class tests in Barking and Dagenham
Some selected extracts state only a conclusion, so they do not show the detailed evidence behind it.
Counted against appeals
Where GPDO Class requirements failed
Class AB appearance requirements were unmet
The Inspector concluded that the proposal did not fully meet Class AB’s external-appearance requirements.
Class AA terms were not met
The Inspector concluded the proposal did not meet Class AA, so did not consider prior approval for siting or appearance.
Helped or needed
What helped Class A rear extensions
The proposal met paragraph A.1
The selected decision records that both parties agreed the proposal complied with paragraph A.1.
No neighbour objection meant no prior approval
With no adjoining owner or occupier objection, the Inspector found that prior approval was not required under A.4(7).
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify a GPDO Class condition your proposal does not meet?
- Does it raise the building’s external appearance, including elevations facing a highway?
- Were adjoining owners or occupiers recorded as objecting to your proposal?
The displayed decisions concern different GPDO Classes and development types, so their facts may not match yours. These decisions do not predict another result.
Appeal evidence examples
Compare allowed and dismissed appeal reasoning
Each example separates the development, the Inspector-stated issue that selected it, and the reasoning from the decision. Compare the facts as well as the outcome: these examples do not predict how a different proposal would be decided.
Allowed appeal examples
3 examples
22 April 2022 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
‘ground floor rear extension with flat roof’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
Taking the above into account, the main issue is whether the proposed development would be permitted by Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
The appeal is allowed and prior approval is 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) (GPDO) for a ground floor rear extension with flat roof at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 21/01311/PRIEXT, dated 2 July 2021, and the details submitted with it pursuant to Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, paragraph A.4(2).
Paragraph 1 · Source page 1
25 October 2022 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a single storey rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main parties agree that the proposal complies with the criteria of paragraph A.1. Due to an objection from an adjoining neighbour, the prior approval of the LPA was required and subsequently refused.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed, and prior approval is deemed to be granted.
Paragraph 16 · Source page 3
26 April 2022 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a single storey rear extension extending 6m from beyond the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse no more than 3m in height at eaves and 3m at highest point.
Issue identified by the Inspector
Taking the above into account, the main issues are: (i) whether prior approval is required, with specific regard to whether any owner or occupier of any adjoining premises has objected to the proposed development; and (ii) if any owner or occupier of any adjoining premises has objected to the proposed development, the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of any adjoining premises.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
In the absence of an objection against the proposal from any owner or occupier of any adjoining premises, there is no requirement for any prior approval specified by paragraph A.4(7) of Class A. There is therefore no need for me to consider the second main issue.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
2 examples
11 November 2021 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘prior approval- part 20, Class AB: New dwellinghouses on terraced buildings in mixed use’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether the proposed development is acceptable in respect of all of the conditions detailed in paragraph AB.2 (1) (a) to (j) of Class AB of Part 2 of Schedule 2 of the GPDO and, in particular, AB.2 (e) (i) (aa) and (bb) which relates to the external appearance of the building including the design and architectural features of the principal elevation and any side elevation that fronts a highway.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal, therefore, would not be acceptable in so far that it would not fully accord with all of the requirements of paragraph AB.2 (1) (e) (i) (aa) and (bb) of Class AB of Part 2 of Schedule 2 of the GPDO. Consequently, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 3
6 December 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
[address]
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • Whether the proposal complies with the requirements of paragraph AA.1.(c) with regards to whether the dwellinghouse was constructed before 1st July 1948 and, if the appeal succeeds in that respect; • Whether prior approval should be granted having regard to the impact on the amenity of any adjoining premises and the external appearance of the dwellinghouse.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
As such the proposal does not meet the terms of Class AA and therefore does not amount to permitted development. As such, it is not necessary or appropriate to consider whether to grant prior approval in respect of the siting or appearance.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2