London Borough of Lambeth appeal evidence
Refused over GPDO limits in Lambeth?
See which extension, amenity and appearance facts appear in selected Lambeth examples.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 5 of 164
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 2
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 3
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 5
- of 5 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: Lambeth LPA (51.453844, −0.118293). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
London Borough of Lambeth appeal findings
Lambeth GPDO checks for width, amenity and added storeys
A selected allowed example, 28564, ends mid-sentence. Dismissed 5218 confirms window compliance but not the dismissal reason.
Counted against appeals
Original-house width and adjoining amenity
Original-house width set the limit
The full-width extension extended beyond a side wall of the original dwellinghouse and was wider than half its width.
Class AA amenity requirement failed
The proposed added storey did not comply with the Class AA requirement on adjoining premises’ amenity.
Helped or needed
Additional storeys on the same estate
Existing storeys shaped area character
Sporadic additional storeys nearby and on the same estate had become part of the area’s character.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does your extension exceed half the original dwellinghouse width?
- Would an additional storey harm adjoining occupants’ amenity?
- Does the refusal address existing additional storeys on the same estate?
The selected examples span Class A extensions and Class AA added-storey prior approvals. 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
21 February 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a single storey rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether the proposal would be granted planning permission by Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended).
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the GPDO), planning permission is granted for the enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse subject to limitations and
Paragraph 5 · Source pages 1, 2
2 July 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
described as: ‘Application for prior approval for the enlargement of the dwellinghouse by construction of one additional storey at a total maximum height of 2.63m (overall building height to be 8.05m).’
Issue identified by the Inspector
The only area of dispute relates to the prior approval matter in paragraph AA.2.(3)(a)(ii). Therefore, the main issue is the effect of the proposal on the external appearance of the dwellinghouse.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
On my site visit, I noted that both nearby to and in the same estate as the appeal site, there are sporadic examples where an additional storey has been constructed on properties. These properties are part of otherwise largely uniform terraces consistent in style with the appeal site. Some are close to a CA and others are not. Although some of the developments were granted permission through the prior approval process before the court judgement cited above, the extra storeys now form part of the character of the area.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
23 August 2021 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a single story side extension with 3m boundary wall and 5.3m deep.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether the development would be permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
As a consequence of my conclusions on the extent of the original dwellinghouse, the proposed full-width extension 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. I am therefore satisfied that the appeal proposal would not be permitted development under the terms of Part 1 Class A.1 (j) (iii) of the GPDO.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
21 June 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the upwards extension to the property.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are whether or not prior approval should be granted pursuant to Schedule 2, Part 1, Class AA of the GPDO, with reference to: • the living conditions of neighbouring occupants with particular regard to sunlight and outlook, and • the character and appearance of the dwelling and the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore conclude that the proposal would not comply with paragraph AA.2(3)(a)(i) of Class AA of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class AA of the GPDO which relates to the impact on the amenity of any adjoining premises. Although not determinative, the proposal would be contrary to paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework), which seeks, a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. Reference has also been made to a policy from the Lambeth Local Plan 2020-2035 (Local Plan), but I have not been provided with the full details of this policy.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
28 October 2021 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
Application for prior approval for the enlargement of the dwellinghouse by construction of one additional storey.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • whether the proposal complies with the condition in sub-paragraph AA.2.(2)(b) with regards to the presence of windows in any wall forming a side elevation in the dwellinghouse; and • if it does so, whether prior approval should be granted for the impact on the amenities of the occupiers of the properties at [address] (inclusive and even numbers only) regarding outlook and loss of light.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
The application drawings listed on the Decision Notice identify the layout of the proposed additional storey and its external appearance, including the position of windows. The additional storey would be arranged in a U-shape which includes an inset section facing south. There are no windows proposed to either the external or inward facing side elevations. With this in mind, I have no reason to consider that the proposal would fail to comply with the condition in sub-paragraph (b), or with any other provision listed under [name].2.(2). Hence, I conclude that the proposal would be permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class AA, [name].2(2) of the GPDO.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2