London Borough of Redbridge appeal evidence
Refused over GPDO limits in Redbridge?
See the extension limits inspectors applied and when an outbuilding stayed separate.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 20 of 268
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 8
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 13
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 21
- of 21 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: Redbridge LPA (51.585659, 0.07589). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
London Borough of Redbridge appeal findings
Redbridge GPDO checks for rear extensions
The allowed upward-extension extract gives only a conclusion, so comparison is limited to detailed rear-extension reasoning.
Counted against appeals
Where Redbridge extensions breached GPDO limits
Beyond the original side elevation
The proposed full-width extension would extend beyond an original side elevation and exceed half the original dwellinghouse width.
Joined extensions counted together
The proposed rear extension would join an existing side/rear extension, creating a total enlargement that exceeded side-width and boundary-eaves limits.
Helped or needed
When an outbuilding stayed separate
Independent outbuilding
The outbuilding stayed separate in form and function, so the Inspector found no compelling reason to add its floorspace to the extension.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does your extension cross an original side elevation?
- Will it join an existing enlargement of the original dwellinghouse?
- Is any nearby outbuilding genuinely separate in form and function?
The selected upward-extension example gives only an allowed conclusion, not the reasons behind it. 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
4 July 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
demolition of existing extension and erection of single storey extension 6.0m deep incorporating flat roof with lantern light.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The Council’s assessment indicates the proposal would satisfy all requirements of Class A, except A.1(g) which specifies the maximum depth of the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse beyond the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse. Therefore, the main issue in this appeal is whether the development would accord with the provisions of Part 1, Class A of the GPDO, with particular regard to the limitations imposed by paragraph A.1(g).
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Whilst the proposed rear extension would be very close to the outbuilding, they would be independent in both form and function. I am satisfied the outbuilding would remain a separate structure from the dwelling. For the purposes of the prior approval application, there is no compelling reason to combine the floorspace of the existing outbuilding with the depth of the proposed extension.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 2
10 May 2024 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
upward extension of an additional single storey, maximum height of 2.5 metres.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether prior approval should be granted under class AA of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the GPDO, having particular regard to the external appearance of the dwellinghouse.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed, and prior approval should be granted. Ifeanyi Chukwujekwu APPEALS PLANNING OFFICER
Paragraph 14 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
8 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
single storey rear extension with a depth of 6.00 metres, highest point of 3.15 metres and height at the eaves of 3.00 metres. Demolish existing extension and bay window.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this case is therefore whether the proposed development would be permitted by Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposed rear extension would be the full width of the dwellinghouse, 6m deep and up to 3.15m high with a flat roof. Its footprint would include development to the side of the original outrigger. Therefore, as the proposed extension would extend beyond the line of an original side elevation, even though that wall would be demolished as part of the proposed development, the restrictions in A.1.(j) would apply. The extension would have a width greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse. As such it would not meet the limitation in paragraph A.1 (j) (iii) of the GPDO.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
25 July 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
single storey rear extension with a depth of 6.00 metres, highest point of 2.95 metres and height at the eaves of 2.95 metres.
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
Furthermore, Section A.1(ja) of the GPDO also sets out that if the total enlargement exceeds the limits of sub-paragraphs (e) to (j) then it will not be permitted development. As defined in the Technical Guidance1, the ‘total enlargement’ is the proposed enlargement together with any existing enlargement of the original dwellinghouse to which it will be joined. The proposed extension would join the existing two-storey side/rear extension, and taken together they would project beyond the original wall forming a side elevation and would have a width greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse, thereby exceeding the limit of Section A.1(j). The total enlargement would also exceed the limit of Section A.1(i) as it would be within 2 metres of the boundary and the eaves would exceed 3 metres. On that basis, the appeal proposal would fail to comply with the relevant limitations of the GPDO and would not represent permitted development.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
27 September 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a single storey rear extension to replace existing conservatory and provide new dining room.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether the proposed extension would comply with the permitted development requirements set out at Class A of the GPDO, with specific regard to Class A.1.(j)(iii).
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Overall therefore, I conclude that it has not been demonstrated that the proposed single storey rear extension would satisfy the requirements of Schedule [site address] , Part 1, Class A of the GPDO, with specific regard to Class A.1(j)(iii), and therefore is not development permitted by it. The proposed development would not comply with one of the limitations and restrictions specified as being applicable to the proposed development, and consequently, it does not benefit from deemed permission under Class A.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2