London Borough of Lewisham appeal evidence
Refused over permitted development in Lewisham?
Learn which extension measurements and appearance concerns mattered in the selected Lewisham 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 130
- 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 4 source-linked examples shown below. Review method and limits.
Planning Data area point: Lewisham LPA (51.448277, −0.020268). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
London Borough of Lewisham appeal findings
Lewisham GPDO checks: extension limits and terrace appearance
The selected examples omit a dismissed appeal from the matched local set, so its reasoning is not shown.
Counted against appeals
Lewisham GPDO checks that failed
Rear section over half-width
The rearmost section was almost as wide as the original house, above the GPDO half-width limit.
Added storey harmed the terrace
The Inspector concluded it would harm the external appearance of the terrace and the area.
Helped or needed
Lewisham GPDO checks that passed
Plans stayed below stated heights
Because the eaves and ridge heights on the plans were below the described maximums, the Inspector found no inconsistency.
Eaves below the boundary limit
Although the extension was close to the boundary, its eaves were below the stated limit.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify a rear section wider than half the original house?
- Do your drawings and description agree on eaves and ridge heights?
- Does the refusal say an added storey harms the terrace's appearance?
These examples cover rear extensions and an added storey, not every Lewisham GPDO route. 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
29 November 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
described as a single storey rear extension extending 6m from existing rear wall. [name] roof of eaves height no more than 3m and maximum height 4m.
Issue identified by the Inspector
Whether the proposal complies with size limits set out within Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A.1 of the GPDO.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
The description of development and the submitted plans, as confirmed within the Council’s delegated report, comply with the above criteria of the GPDO. The description of development does not define a specific ridge and eaves height for the proposal, saying that these would be a maximum of four metres and no more than three metres respectively. As the proposed eaves and ridge heights within the submitted plans are below that stipulated within the description of development, there is no conflict or inconsistency between them in this respect.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
10 December 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
Application for [name] under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, Part (g) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended) for the construction of a single storey rear extension at a depth of 4.00m, an eaves height of 2.30m and a maximum height of 3.30m to [site address] SE12.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in the appeal are: • Whether the proposed development satisfies the requirements of the Town & Country (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 with regard to being permitted development under the above Order. • And if so, whether planning permission is deemed to have been granted.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal extension would be 1m from the boundary of the dwellinghouse, 3.3m at its highest point falling to 2.3m at its eaves. [name].1(i) of the Order sets out that permitted development is not allowed if the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would be within 2 metres of the boundary of the curtilage of the dwellinghouse, and the height of the eaves of the enlarged part would exceed 3 metres. Technical Guidance (MHCLG 2019) identifies that for the purpose of measuring height, the eaves of a house are the point where the lowest point of a roof slope, or a flat roof, meets the outside wall. Given the eaves height is 2.3m then the proposal would comply with paragraph A.1(i) of the Order.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
2 examples
29 July 2021 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as “proposed single storey 5m rear extension”.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether the proposed development would comply with the conditions, limitations or restrictions applicable to development permitted, having regard to Class A of Schedule 2, Part 1 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the GPDO).
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The rearmost part of the extension, which would extend beyond the side elevation of the appeal property, would have a width that is almost equal to the width of the original dwellinghouse. This rearmost part of the extension would therefore have a greater width than half the width of the original dwellinghouse. The proposal would fail to meet the criteria in paragraph A.1(j) of the GPDO and the proposed extension can therefore not be classed as permitted development.
Paragraph 6 · Source pages 1, 2
29 November 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
[name] for the construction of one additional storey resulting in a maximum height of 8.2m at [site address] , SE23, under Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) – Schedule 2, Part 1, Class AA.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this appeal is whether prior approval should be granted, having particular regard to paragraph AA.2 (3)(a)(ii) of the GPDO and the external appearance of the dwellinghouse.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Consequently, the development proposed would cause harm to the external appearance of the terrace and the area in which it is located. This, in accordance with AA.3 (12) of the GPDO, and in so far as it is relevant to the subject matter of the prior approval, would conflict with the objectives of chapter 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework, particularly paragraph 126, which amongst other things, requires the creation of high quality, beautiful and sustainable buildings that add to the overall quality of the area.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 2