London Borough of Hillingdon appeal evidence
Refused over permitted development in Hillingdon?
See which GPDO limits featured in selected Hillingdon appeals and the facts to check in your refusal notice.
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 389
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 4
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 5
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 8
- 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: Hillingdon LPA (51.541513, −0.445636). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
London Borough of Hillingdon appeal findings
Which GPDO limits stopped Hillingdon proposals?
The selected examples are more dismissal-heavy than the matched local set, and the allowed extract records the Council’s objection, not the Inspector’s reason for allowing it.
Counted against appeals
GPDO limits that stopped selected proposals
Rear extension missed a Class A limit
The Inspector concluded the rear extension did not comply with paragraph A.1(j)(iii), so it was not permitted development.
Class AA compliance could not be established
The Inspector could not establish compliance with Class AA.1(c), putting the two-storey addition outside the permitted development right.
External appearance failed a Class AA condition
The Inspector found the additional storey’s external appearance unacceptable under Class AA.2(3)(a)(ii).
Helped or needed
The allowed example’s recorded boundary issue
Side-wall extent was disputed
In the allowed extension example, the extract records the Council’s view that it extended beyond a side wall of the original dwellinghouse.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Which GPDO class and paragraph does your refusal notice say the proposal fails?
- Does the proposal extend beyond a side wall of the original dwellinghouse?
- Do your plans establish compliance with each cited GPDO limit?
The shown allowed extract gives no Inspector explanation for allowing the extension, and one dismissal states only a conclusion. 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
10 May 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
[name] Extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether or not the development is permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
[name].4 requires that before beginning the development, the developer must apply to the Council for prior approval in relation to certain matters. The Council find that the proposal is not within the limitations of the GPDO and therefore refused the proposal. They consider this is because the extension would extend beyond a wall forming the side of the original dwellinghouse.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
17 August 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
demolition of existing utility building and 4m single storey rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue relates to whether or not the proposal constitutes permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (GPDO) and if so, whether prior approval would be required.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Accordingly, for the above reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would not comply with paragraph A.1(j)(iii) and would not therefore constitute permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 2
9 September 2021 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
addition of one floor above original ground floor.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues of the appeal are: • whether the proposal would be permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class AA of the GPDO; and • if so, the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the dwellinghouse.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the above reason, I conclude that, based on the evidence before me, the proposal would not be permitted under the requirements of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class AA of the GPDO.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 2
18 February 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
to form two additional storeys on an existing dwellinghouse. The proposal is for over the principle part of the building only. The proposed two floors will match the existing, with painted white render and black window frames, styles to match. The copper ‘verde’ roof will be raised the required 5.7 metres. No new windows are proposed to the sides.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether the proposed development complies with the conditions, limitations or restrictions applicable to enable it to be permitted development.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Therefore, regardless of the disagreement between the parties in relation to AA.1 (h) (floor to ceiling heights), I cannot therefore establish whether the proposed development complies with the limitation outlined at Schedule 2, Part 1, Class AA - AA.1.(c) of the GPDO and the development falls outside the permitted development right.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
10 November 2021 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the enlargement of a dwellinghouse consisting of the construction of one additional storey.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The decision notice states that insufficient information was submitted to establish whether the development would comply with Class AA.1.(h) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) in respect of the floor to ceiling height of the additional storey. Class AA.1.(h) requires any additional storey, measured internally, does not exceed the lower of- (i) 3m; or (ii) the floor to ceiling height, measured internally, of any storey of the principal part of the existing dwelling.
Paragraph 5 · Source pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
The development would not be acceptable in terms of its external appearance and does not comply with Class AA.2 (3)(a)(ii) of the GDPO. It would also conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which seeks to ensure proposals are well-designed and respect their context.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 2