London Borough of Hounslow appeal evidence
Refused over permitted development under the GPDO in Hounslow?
See the property and proposal facts inspectors used in selected Hounslow GPDO appeals.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 6 of 286
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 3
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 3
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 6
- of 6 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: Hounslow LPA (51.468493, −0.366095). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
London Borough of Hounslow appeal findings
Hounslow rear extensions: GPDO limits and property status
The selected examples lean towards dismissed appeals more than the matched local set. Appeals 14640 and 7237 give conclusions without their earlier analysis.
Counted against appeals
Where Hounslow GPDO tests failed
A.1 and A.4 not met
The Inspector concluded that the rear extension did not meet all A.1 and A.4 requirements, so it was not permitted development.
A.1(j) limitation failed
The Inspector concluded that the extension did not accord with A.1(j), so it did not constitute permitted development.
Existing work changed the scheme
The Inspector found that work had likely begun, and the scheme could not be built without altering an existing extension outside the proposal.
Helped or needed
Hounslow facts supporting GPDO status
Maximum height was evidenced
Despite discrepancies, the evidence showed the proposed extension would stay within the GPDO maximum height.
Single dwellinghouse status
The property functioned as a dwellinghouse, had not been divided into flats and was separate from the outbuilding.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal notice identify an A.1 or A.4 requirement?
- Can your evidence establish the proposed extension's maximum height?
- Would existing works need altering before your proposal could be built?
This review uses only GPDO reasoning from appeal 61717, which also raised neighbour amenity. 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
2 examples
8 April 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
6m deep single-storey rear extension
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 Article 3, Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Despite the discrepancies, the evidence before me is clear that the maximum height of the proposed extension would not exceed the 4m permitted by the GPDO. Consequently, I consider that the proposed development would be granted planning permission by Article 3, Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
31 October 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
described as a 6 metre deep single storey rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
Whether the proposal complies with Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO with specific regard to whether or not it is a dwellinghouse for its purposes.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
For the purposes of the GPDO a dwellinghouse does not include a building containing one or more flats, or a flat contained within such a building. The appeal property appears to function as a single dwellinghouse, has not been divided into flats, and is physically separate from the outbuilding. It is therefore not a flat, nor does it contain flats.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
4 May 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as, “Single storey rear extension”.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this appeal is whether the proposed development would be permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the reasons given above, the proposal would not comply with all of the requirements of paragraphs A.1 nor A.4. Thus, the proposed development would not be permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
12 December 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a proposed single story 6m rear extension with associated internal alterations.
Issue identified by the Inspector
Accordingly, the main issues are: • Whether the proposal is permitted development in accordance with Class A, Part 1, Schedule 2 of the GPDO; and if so, • Whether the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of all adjoining premises is acceptable.
Paragraph 6 · Source pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
I also saw on my site inspection that the new extension, although having a shorter length than the appeal proposal (said to extend some 3 metres from the rear of the property) and different fenestration on its end elevation, partly occupies the same location as the appeal proposal. The appellant has also stated that a certificate of lawfulness1 was issued by the Council in May 2024 for the rear extension. To this extent and given the constructed extension’s similar roof design to the proposal, it is likely that the existing extension could reasonably be extended and altered to reflect the appeal scheme before me. As such, it is more likely than not, that works have commenced on the prior approval scheme the subject of this appeal. In any event, it would not now be possible to erect the proposal the subject of this appeal without altering the existing extension, which is not part of the proposal or within the prior approval remit of the Class A, Part 1, Schedule 2 of the GPDO.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
8 December 2021 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the construction of single storey rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether the proposed development is permitted development for the purposes of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the GDPO).
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the above reasons, I conclude that the extension would not accord with limitation A.1(j) of Class A. Consequently, the proposal would not comply with the conditions, limitations, and restrictions applicable to development permitted under Part 1, Class A, Schedule 2 of the GPDO. Therefore, the development does not constitute permitted development under Class A. In these circumstances, there is no need for me to consider the impact of the development on the amenity of the neighbours or whether it would comply with planning policies.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 2