Epping Forest District Council appeal evidence
Refused over permitted development in Epping Forest?
See the local failures in additional-storey proposals and the allowed conclusion on external appearance.
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 239
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 1
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 8
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 9
- 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: Epping Forest LPA (51.70889, 0.148762). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Epping Forest District Council appeal findings
Class AA, storeys and neighbour effects
The selected examples have a different outcome mix from the matched local set. The allowed extract is only a conclusion, without detailed analysis.
Counted against appeals
Why selected GPDO appeals failed
The whole scheme had to qualify
The plans did not show an additional storey, so the Inspector found that part outside Class AA. The whole development had to comply with the GPDO.
A Class AA description failed
The proposal met the other listed Class AA descriptions but not sub-paragraph (i). The Inspector saw no reason to disagree.
Overbearing effects on neighbours
The Inspector found significant harm at Nos 95 and 99 through overbearing effects, daylight and overshadowing.
Helped or needed
The allowed extension's appearance
Only the conclusion is shown
The allowed appeal’s conclusion says the proposed extension would have an acceptable external appearance. It gives no design details.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify a Class AA requirement your whole proposal misses?
- Do your plans clearly show an additional storey of accommodation?
- Does the refusal cite neighbour daylight, overshadowing or overbearing effects?
A dismissed extract omits its earlier deciding reason, and the neighbour-effects example is a prior-approval case at this theme's edge. 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
16 December 2021 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the enlargement of a dwellinghouse by construction of an additional storey (render option).
Issue identified by the Inspector
These are: • For Appeal A – whether the external materials would be similar to those existing so that the proposed extension accords with the conditions for permitted development. • [name] and C – the effect of the proposed extension on the external appearance of the dwellinghouse.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Appeal A does not fall within the parameters of permitted development and the effect of the extension proposed in Appeal B on the external appearance of the dwellinghouse would not be satisfactory. These appeals therefore fail. However, Appeal C would result in an acceptable external appearance and therefore succeeds.
Paragraph 14 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
27 November 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the enlargement of the dwelling house by construction of an additional storey.
Issue identified by the Inspector
Therefore, the main issues in this case are: • Whether the development would amount to permitted development, having regard to the condition at paragraph AA.2(2)(b) of the Order; • If the appeal succeeds in relation to the first main issue, whether prior approval should be granted having regard to the external appearance of the dwellinghouse and the impact on the amenity of any adjoining premises.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
As a consequence of my findings above, it is not necessary to consider whether to grant prior approval with regard to paragraph AA.2(3)(a) as, even if these matters were met, this would not alter the outcome of the appeal.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
12 August 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
upwards extension of a single storey. Appeal A Ref: APP/J1535/D/21/3289225 [site address] , Chigwell, [postcode]
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue for both appeals is whether the proposals are permitted development.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
The GPDO states that development is not permitted by Class AA where it falls within descriptions as set out in sub-paragraphs AA.1 (a) to (k). It is common ground that the proposals accord with all of the above sub-paragraphs with the exception of sub-paragraph (i) and there is no reason to disagree with that
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
8 June 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a proposed enlargement of a dwellinghouse by construction of additional storey.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether the proposal is permitted development.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
From the submitted plans, it is clear that this element of the proposal does not provide an ‘additional storey’ of accommodation. Consequently, this part of the proposal does not fall within the scope of Class AA. In short, for the Class AA permitted development rights to apply, the whole development must accord with the provisions of the GPDO.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
23 January 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as [name] TO 6M [name].
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether or not prior approval should be given, having particular regard to the effect of the proposal upon the living conditions of Nos 95 and [address] with particular reference to daylight, overshadowing and whether or not it would be overbearing.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
[name] find that the proposal would not result in harmful living conditions to No 95 in respect of daylight and overshadowing, it would result in significantly adverse effects and harmful living conditions to No 95 because it would be overbearing, and to No 99 in respect being overbearing, daylight and overshadowing. Therefore, the proposal is not considered acceptable having regard to the provisions of paragraph A.4(7) and A.4(9) of the GPDO.
Paragraph 15 · Source page 3