London Borough of Havering appeal evidence
Refused over GPDO extension limits in Havering?
See what selected Havering GPDO decisions say about original walls, width and earlier extensions.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 16 of 331
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 7
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 9
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 16
- of 16 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: Havering LPA (51.563125, 0.220447). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
London Borough of Havering appeal findings
How Havering GPDO extensions were measured
The displayed examples have a different outcome mix from the matched local set. The allowed extract does not explain why the appeal was allowed.
Counted against appeals
When GPDO extensions failed Class A
Earlier enlargement counted with new work
The Inspector added the proposed rear extension to an earlier enlargement when applying the GPDO limits.
Bay removal did not move the line
Removing a bay did not move the starting line. The Inspector used the original footprint and found the proposal extended beyond a side wall.
Width beyond a side wall
The width restriction did not apply only to the part beyond a side wall. Filling the corner still triggered both restrictions.
Helped or needed
Original-house baseline in allowed extract
Identify the original dwellinghouse
The allowed extract says the GPDO definition of the original building can depend on when it was built. It gives no further allowance reasoning.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal notice identify the original dwellinghouse footprint and construction date?
- Are earlier extensions included with the proposed work?
- Would the extension cross a side wall or exceed half the original width?
The displayed allowed extract does not say why the Inspector allowed the appeal. 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
22 December 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
No verified development description was available for this example.
Issue identified by the Inspector
Given the above, 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.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
The Council specifically refused prior approval because it deemed the proposed development to not comply with limitation A.1(j)(iii) under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO. This sets out that development is not permitted under Class A 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. In relation to a building, the GPDO defines “original” as, amongst other things, a building existing on 1st July 1948, as existing on that date; or if built on or after 1st July 1948, as so built.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
19 July 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as “single-storey rear extension”.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether the proposed development satisfies Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the above 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
20 October 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as “Single storey rear extension with a depth of 2 metres. Combined depth of 6 metres from the original dwellinghouse”.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether the proposal would be permitted development as provided for by Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (hereafter “the GPDO”).
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The appellant considers that “while the existing is [a] part single and part two storey rear extension, the proposal will project beyond the single storey element and therefore the proposal will fall within permitted development requirements”. However, [name].1.(ja) of the GPDO states that development is not permitted by Class A if “any total enlargement (being the enlarged part together with any existing enlargement of the original dwellinghouse to which it will be joined) [my emphasis] exceeds or would exceed the limits set out in sub-paragraphs (e) to (j)”. Page 23 of the technical guidance1 provides a practical summary of how this is applied: “For example, if a proposed extension of 3 metres in height is added to an existing extension which exceeds 4 metres in height, or if the proposed extension creates a total enlargement which has a width greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse, it would not be permitted development.”
Paragraph 5 · Source pages 1, 2
29 September 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.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The limitation (j) width restriction does not solely apply to the part of the extension that extends beyond a side wall of the house. The Technical Guidance clearly advises that where an extension fills the area between a side elevation and a rear wall, then the restrictions on extensions beyond rear walls and side walls will both apply. If a proposed extension extends beyond a side wall and is more than half the width of the original house, it would not be permitted development and an application for planning permission would be required.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
29 December 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
single storey rear extension with an overall depth of 6m, a maximum height of 3m, and an eaves height of 2.80m. ([name]).
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether the proposal would comply with Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The bay would be removed as part of the proposal. However, for the purposes of calculating the limitations of permitted development, the starting point should be the location of the original wall, based on the original footprint of the dwellinghouse, whether the wall would be demolished or not. On that basis, the proposal would extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse i.e. the walls that form part of the bay. The proposal 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, [name].1(j)(iii) of the GPDO.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2