Sheffield City Council appeal evidence
Refused over permitted development in Sheffield?
See how the selected examples tested GPDO limits, appearance and original-building evidence.
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 122
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 1
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 4
- 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: Sheffield LPA (53.393412, −1.486964). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Sheffield City Council appeal findings
Sheffield extensions against GPDO limits
Within the selected examples, the allowed appeal is at the issue’s edge: its cited passage concerns a front dormer’s appearance, not GPDO compliance.
Counted against appeals
Where Sheffield extensions fell outside GPDO rules
Beyond original dwelling limits
A joined kitchen extension projected beyond the original side wall and was wider than half the original dwelling, so it did not qualify as permitted development.
Appearance failed Class AA
The inspector concluded the additional first-floor extension’s external appearance was unacceptable under Class AA. The selected extract gives no fuller design explanation.
Original-building evidence was missing
No dates confirmed when the house or its rear offshoot was built, so the inspector could not establish whether the offshoot formed part of the original dwelling.
Helped or needed
What supported the attic conversion
Most works raised no visual concern
The Council took no issue with most works, apparently because they could be permitted development or had no adverse visual impact. The inspector did not disagree.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal say the extension exceeds half the original dwelling’s width?
- Does it question when the house or an offshoot was built?
- Does it identify why the external appearance is unacceptable?
A selected dismissed example gives only its GPDO conclusion, not the analysis 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
1 example
23 December 2024 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
described as an attic conversion, including raising roof and dormer to rear and front to form bedroom and en-suite. Associated works.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The Council takes no issue with the majority of the works proposed largely, it would seem, on the basis that they could be carried out under permitted development rights and/or that there would be no adverse visual impact. I have no reason to disagree for the reasons given in the officer’s report. The Council does take issue however, with the proposed front dormer. On that basis, the main issue in this case relates to the effect of the front dormer on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
To conclude, the proposed front dormer would comprise an ungainly addition to this otherwise well-proportioned, architecturally balanced property, introducing a visually obtrusive and discordant addition to the streetscene, with consequent harm to the established character and appearance of the area. There would be conflict in this regard with policy CS74 of the [name], with UDP policies H14 and BE5, with the Council’s SPG and paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework,1 which broadly seek to protect and enhance the built environment and secure high quality development of a design which responds appropriately and sympathetically to the character and appearance of the locality.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
30 June 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
single storey kitchen extension to rear.
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 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
In this case, the dwelling has previously been extended at the side by way of a flat roofed single storey extension, to which the proposed development would be joined. Whilst the proposal would not exceed the width of the previous extension it would project beyond the side wall of the original dwelling by 1.26m, a matter acknowledged by the appellant. Furthermore, it is not disputed that the extension would be wider than the half the width of the original dwellinghouse. Accordingly, the proposal would not comply with the requirements of Class A.1 (j) (iii) and is not therefore ‘permitted development’.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
9 February 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
single storey rear extension with a flat roof.
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
I therefore conclude that the proposal would not comply with Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO. The appeal should therefore be dismissed.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
12 July 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
an additional first floor extension to existing bungalow.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether the proposal would accord with Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class AA of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the GPDO).
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Overall, the external appearance of the dwellinghouse would be unacceptable and the proposal would be contrary to the requirements of paragraph AA.2.(3)(a)(ii) of Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class AA of the GPDO.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
14 November 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
to demolish existing rear extension and for new single storey rear extension to form kitchen.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether the proposed extension would be granted planning permission by Article 3, Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, as amended (GPDO).
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Both parties have had the opportunity to provide clarification on whether the existing offshoot is part of the original dwellinghouse as defined by the GPDO. If the property were built after 1948, it is clear from the brickwork difference that the offshoot would not form part of the original ‘as built’ building. Notwithstanding this I have not been provided with confirmation of the date the house was built nor a date when the offshoot was rebuilt.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 2