Royal Borough of Greenwich appeal evidence
Refused over GPDO limits in Greenwich?
See which GPDO limits feature in the selected dismissals and what the allowed decision does not explain.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 7 of 301
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 1
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 6
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 6
- of 7 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: Greenwich LPA (51.474431, 0.055569). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Royal Borough of Greenwich appeal findings
Why Greenwich extensions fell outside GPDO limits
The selected allowed example gives only the decision, not why prior approval was granted. The selected examples have a different outcome mix from the matched local set.
Counted against appeals
Class A limits cited in dismissals
Width beyond the side wall
Both extensions went beyond a side wall and were wider than half the original dwellinghouse, so they failed Class A.
A.1(j) was not met
The extract concludes that the proposal did not comply with Class A paragraph A.1(j), without giving the particular failure.
Helped or needed
What the allowed Class AA decision shows
Approval, but no stated reason
Prior approval was granted for an additional storey under Class AA, subject to AA.2 conditions. The extract does not say what helped.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Which GPDO paragraph does the refusal say your proposal fails?
- Does the refusal say your extension extends beyond a side wall?
- Does the refusal say its width exceeds half the original dwellinghouse?
The selected roof-extension dismissal states only its conclusion, and the allowed decision gives no supporting reasons. 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
8 November 2022 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the construction of one additional storey immediately above the topmost storey of the dwellinghouse.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether prior approval should be given, having particular regard to the resulting external appearance of the dwellinghouse.
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 AA, of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) for the construction of one additional storey immediately above the topmost storey of the dwellinghouse at [site address] in accordance with the application 21/3717/PN4 made on 18 October 2021, and the details submitted with it pursuant to Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class AA, and subject to the conditions in paragraph AA.2.
Paragraph 1 · Source page 1
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
22 October 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
demolition of existing rear extension and erection of single storey 5m rear extension with flat roof.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether or not the proposed development satisfies Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would not comply with paragraph A.1(j) of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
4 November 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
prior approval for a roof top extension involving the additional two- storeys added on top of 13 & [address] Yard, SE9 to create 2 self contained flats (1 x 2-bed & 1 x 1- bed).
Issue identified by the Inspector
Accordingly, the main issue is whether planning permission should be granted by Article 3, Schedule 2, Class AA of the GPDO, with regard to whether the proposal would satisfy condition AA.2(1)(e), with reference to the effect of the proposal on the external appearance of the building.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
For the reasons given above, I conclude that prior approval should not be granted and therefore the appeal should be dismissed. [planning inspector] - INSPECTOR
Paragraph 18 · Source page 3
15 June 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described on the application form as “the erection of a single-storey rear extension with dimensions of 6m (length), 3m (total maximum height) and 3m with roof light and bi-folding doors”.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in this appeal are whether the proposal would comply with Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO with regard to: • would the proposal extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse; and • whether sufficient information has been provided to enable the local planning authority to establish whether the proposal meets the conditions, limitations or restrictions applicable to development permitted by Class A.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal would therefore extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse and would also have a width greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse. Consequently, the proposal would fail to comply with Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, paragraph A.1(j)(iii) of the GPDO.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
18 October 2021 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
single storey rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this appeal is whether the proposed development would be granted planning permission by Article 3, Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO.
Paragraph 5 · Source pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
Although the proposal would demolish the single storey rear projection, the new extension would extend beyond the side wall of the kitchen and whilst complying with the height and single storey criteria of paragraph A.1. (j), its width would exceed more than half the width of the original dwellinghouse as stipulated in paragraph A.1.(j) (iii). As such the proposal would not comprise development permitted by Class A of the GPDO.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2