Southend-on-Sea Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over permitted development in Southend-on-Sea?
See how selected local appeals failed GPDO checks on extension limits, prior approval and external appearance.
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 139
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 0
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 5
- 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: Southend-on-Sea LPA (51.538043, 0.728596). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Southend-on-Sea Borough Council appeal findings
Southend-on-Sea GPDO checks that stopped approval
No allowed appeal appears in the matched local set, so the selected examples cannot show what secured approval. One example sits at the issue's edge: an upward extension's external appearance.
Counted against appeals
Southend-on-Sea GPDO failures in selected appeals
Flank wall and width breach
The rear extension went beyond an original flank wall and, where its roof was higher, exceeded half the original dwelling's width.
Third storey stood out
The extra floor was out of keeping with its mostly two-storey surroundings and would stand out from nearby streets.
Work and rights barred approval
One extension had already begun. In another, permitted development rights did not exist at the decision date despite proposed demolition.
No allowed example matched
What Southend-on-Sea GPDO evidence still needed
This snapshot has no allowed local example for this issue.
Class A measurements needed
The dismissed extension needed evidence that its position and width met the relevant Class A limits.
Prior approval before work starts
In the selected example, prior approval could not be granted because the extension had already begun.
Existing rights needed checking
In the selected example, the Inspector concluded there were no permitted development rights at the decision date.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify a Class A position or width breach?
- Does the refusal cite work already started or lost permitted development rights?
- Does the refusal say an added storey jars with two-storey homes?
The displayed reasoning contains no allowed appeal and includes an external-appearance case at the edge of this GPDO issue. These decisions do not predict another result.
Appeal evidence examples
Read the reasoning in matched appeal decisions
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.
Dismissed appeal examples
5 examples
19 March 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
erect single storey rear extension, projecting 5.2m beyond the existing rear wall of the dwelling, with a maximum height of 3.0m.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether the proposed extension would be granted planning permission by Class A of the GPDO.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposed extension would extend beyond the flank wall of the original rear outrigger which is a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse. Moreover, where the roof height of the single storey element would be increased the proposed extension would have a width greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse. For these reasons, the proposed extension would fail to comply with A. 1(j)(iii) of Class A of the GPDO.
Paragraph 6 · Source pages 1, 2
23 June 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as “The proposed development is for an upwards extension to create an additional floor at [site address] , Southend, Essex [postcode] ”.
Issue identified by the Inspector
Therefore, the main issue is whether prior approval should be granted when the proposed development is assessed against condition AA.2 (3)(a)(ii) of the GPDO, in relation to the external appearance of the dwellinghouse.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The resulting three-storey dwelling would appear incongruous in its predominantly two-storey surroundings. Given the high degree of similarity in the existing dwellings in the immediate surroundings, the harm to the character and appearance of the area arising from the proposal’s design, height, scale and size would be significant. Furthermore, it would be prominent when viewed from [address], as well as from [name] to the north, where it would be seen in the context of other two-storey dwellings.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
20 September 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
to erect a single storey rear extension with six roof lights.
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 Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Having regard to all of the above, I conclude that the proposed development would not comply with the stipulations of [name].1(j)(iii), Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO and so would not constitute permitted development.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 2
6 October 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as “proposed single storey rear extension would measure 6 meters in depth, by 16 meters in width and have a height of 3.1 metres”.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether the proposal is permitted development under the above Order. 1 Planning References 22/01536/FULH, 23/00009/FULH and 23/00562/FULH
Paragraph 5 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Having regard to the appellant’s additional evidence, prior approval cannot be granted for development that has already begun, whether or not it is wholly or partially completed2. I therefore conclude that the proposed extension is not permitted under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
11 November 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
demolition of existing extension and erection of single storey rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether the proposal would be permitted development.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I acknowledge that the proposal explicitly includes the demolition of the unauthorised extension. However, at the time of this appeal decision, there would be no permitted development rights and therefore it is not possible to grant prior approval for the extension works at this time.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2