London Borough of Croydon appeal evidence
Refused permitted development in Croydon?
See which GPDO limits and plan details Croydon inspectors found decisive in the selected examples.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 9 of 260
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 4
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 5
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 7
- of 9 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: Croydon LPA (51.355336, −0.087133). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
London Borough of Croydon appeal findings
Croydon GPDO limits behind extension refusals
The selected examples lean toward dismissed appeals more than the matched local set, so allowed reasoning is less fully shown here.
Counted against appeals
Why the GPDO claims failed
Width exceeded the Class A limit
A rear extension was wider than half the original dwelling and extended from an original side wall, so it did not meet limitation (j).
A kink still counted as a wall
A rear-wall kink was deep enough to create a distinct projecting hipped roof, so the Inspector treated it as a wall under the GPDO.
Evidence did not prove compliance
One example had insufficient information to determine compliance with Class A limits. Another supplied no alternative roof material despite plans showing a non-matching roof.
Helped or needed
What supported an upward extension
No harm to appearance
The Inspector found the extra storey would not harm the building’s external appearance or the surrounding area.
Design responded to local character
The proposal also accorded with design aims for development responding to local character and distinctiveness.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal notice identify a width, side wall or other GPDO limit?
- Does it say your submitted materials do not meet a GPDO requirement?
- Does it raise external appearance of the building or surrounding area?
The displayed allowed example concerns an upward extension; the dismissed examples mainly concern rear extensions. 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
1 example
24 April 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
notification for prior approval under the GPDO 2015 under Class AA for an upwards extension of one storey to a dwellinghouse.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether prior approval should be granted under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class AA of the GPDO, having particular regard to the effect of the proposed development on the external appearance of the building and its surroundings.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal would therefore not harm the external appearance of the building or the surrounding area. Whilst not determinative, I have had regard to Policies D3 and D4 of the London Plan 2021 and Policies SP4 and DM10 of the Croydon Local Plan 2018 to the extent that they are relevant considerations within the terms of the GPDO. The proposal would accord with their collective aims that, amongst other things, developments deliver high quality, good design which responds to local character and distinctiveness.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
25 July 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
single storey rear extension, to enable the provision of a larger kitchen and dining area.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether the proposed extension is permitted under the Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (GPDO).
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The development would have a width greater than half the width of the original dwelling and it would extend from an original side wall. The proposed development would therefore not comply with limitation (j) of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A and therefore would not be development permitted under the GPDO.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
18 December 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
single storey rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether the proposed development would be granted planning permission by Article 3, Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO, with particular regard to whether the wall forms a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
The wall has been described as a ‘slight kink in the rear building line’, leading me to question whether it is indeed ‘a wall’ for the purposes of the GPDO. It is deep enough to result in a distinct hipped roof above it, one which projects beyond the main rear roofline. The wall therefore has some significance in the shape and form of the dwelling, and is not so inconsequential that I could discount it as ‘a wall’ for the purposes of the GPDO.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 2
29 August 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the erection of single storey rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
Therefore, the main issue in this appeal is whether the proposed development would be granted planning permission by Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO. If the proposal is permitted development, I would then assess its impact on the amenity of adjoining premises, taking into account the representations received under paragraph A.4(7).
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
In order to benefit from the provisions of Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO, the proposed development must involve the enlargement of a dwellinghouse and comply with the limitations in paragraphs A.1(g), (i) and (k), In this case, I conclude that there is insufficient information to determine that the proposed development would be granted planning permission by Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO.
Paragraph 14 · Source page 3
27 April 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the erection of a single storey rear extension projecting out 5 metres from the rear wall of the original house with a height to the eaves of 2.6 metres and a maximum height of 3.8 metres.
Issue identified by the Inspector
I consider that the main issue in this appeal is whether the proposed development would be granted planning permission by Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Furthermore, the appellant contends that the requirement for materials to match is a condition of any permission granted, not a matter that falls to be assessed as part of the application. Although the regulations do not require an appellant to provide details of materials used, in this case it is very clear from the submission that the appellant proposes to use the materials specified on the plans, and that these would not meet the requirements of the A.3 of the GDPO. As a result, the development as proposed would not be permitted development when assessed against the regulations. I have considered whether it would be appropriate to disregard this detail on the submitted plans, in the knowledge that on construction, to benefit from permitted development rights, the extension would need to be constructed in matching materials. However, I have been provided with no alternative details, or indeed any indication that the appellant intends to construct the roof of the extension in any other material. Therefore, whilst I accept that an alternative roof material may meet the requirements of the [name].3(a), based on the information before me, the scheme would clearly fail to do so.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2