London Borough of Sutton appeal evidence
Refused over permitted development in Sutton?
See GPDO tests cited in selected Sutton appeals and which proposal details to check in your refusal.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 8 of 134
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 0
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 8
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 8
- of 8 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: Sutton LPA (51.362086, −0.177544). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
London Borough of Sutton appeal findings
Sutton GPDO limits cited in extension appeals
The matched local set has no allowed appeal. Several extracts state only conclusions, and appeal 13241 also raises neighbour living conditions alongside GPDO.
Counted against appeals
Sutton extensions failing GPDO limits
Need did not establish Class A compliance
The Inspector said the proposal’s reasons, need and claimed lack of neighbour harm did not alter the Class A assessment.
Rear extension missed limitation A.4(10)
The Inspector concluded that the extension did not accord with limitation A.4(10), so it was not permitted development under Class A.
Rear extension missed A.1(j)(iii)
The Inspector could not conclude that the proposed extension met the A.1(j)(iii) criteria, so it did not constitute permitted development.
No allowed example matched
No allowed Sutton GPDO example
This snapshot has no allowed local example for this issue.
Show Class A compliance separately
The dismissal shows that need and claimed lack of neighbour harm did not replace meeting Class A requirements.
Check each named extension limit
The selected extracts say rear extensions did not meet A.4(10) or A.1(j)(iii), but do not include the earlier assessment.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Which Class A limit or criterion does the refusal identify?
- Do your drawings show the measurement or feature named in the refusal?
- Are you relying on need or a lack of neighbour harm rather than GPDO compliance?
Appeal 49695’s displayed extract gives no conclusion on the additional-storey proposal. 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
22 January 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
single storey rear extension 6m.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether or not the proposal constitutes development permitted under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A 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
I have also noted the appellant’s submissions regarding the reasons for and need for the proposal and a lack of harm to neighbouring occupiers. However, such matters of broader planning judgment are not relevant to the assessment of whether or not a proposal would comply with the requirements of Class A, and do not alter my conclusion that the appeal scheme would not be permitted development under this Class. Nevertheless, it would be open to the appellant to make an application to the Council for planning permission.
Paragraph 15 · Source page 3
18 April 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the erection of an additional storey to an existing dwelling house.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether the proposals are permitted development having regard to Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class AA of the GPDO.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
The recent decisions made by the Council include confirmation3 that the erection of a 7.6 metre single-storey rear extension would not require the prior approval of the local planning authority under the GPDO. From the information I have seen, and from my observations on site, the 7.6 metre rear extension would appear to be that which was under construction at the time of my visit. Subsequent to that decision, the Council granted a ‘Lawful Development Certificate for a [name] or Development’4 for development described in 1 SUT/[address] Banstead [postcode] - The proposed layout of seven building plots. (Nos 19,21,23,31,33,35,37); and SUT/20165 [name] [address] Banstead [postcode] - The erection of a detached bungalow and private garage. 2 The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the GPDO). 3 Council Ref. DM2023/00677 dated 31 May 2023. 4 Council Ref. DM2023/01139 dated 18 September 2023 Appeal Decisions APP/P5870/D/23/3325777 and APP/P5870/D/23/3325781 the associated application as ‘A Hip to gable roof. Erection of a dormer over the rear slope’.
Paragraph 9 · Source pages 2, 3
12 May 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
single storey rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this appeal is whether the proposed development would be granted planning permission by Article 3, Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the above reason, I conclude that the extension would not accord with limitation A.4 (10) of Class A. Consequently, the proposal would not comply with the conditions, limitations, and restrictions applicable to development permitted under Part 1, Class A, Schedule 2 of the GPDO. Therefore, the development does not constitute permitted development under Class A.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
31 March 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a single storey rear extension up to 6m from the original elevation of the dwelling with roof light over.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in the appeal are: • Whether the proposed extension would constitute permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO; and • If the development does constitute permitted development, the effect of the proposal upon the living conditions and therefore the amenity of adjoining premises at No. 36 and No. [address].
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
On this basis, I conclude that the development would constitute permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
17 March 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a single storey rear extension projecting from the rear of the original house by 5.3m.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in the appeal is whether the proposed extension would constitute permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
On this basis, I cannot conclude that the proposed extension would meet the criteria in paragraph A.1(j)(iii) of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO and so would not constitute permitted development.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2