London Borough of Wandsworth appeal evidence
Refused over permitted development in Wandsworth?
See which Wandsworth findings counted against selected proposals and which GPDO checks cleared before you test your refusal notice.
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 153
- 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 5 source-linked examples shown below. Review method and limits.
Planning Data area point: Wandsworth LPA (51.451964, −0.186167). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
London Borough of Wandsworth appeal findings
Wandsworth GPDO checks and external appearance
Some displayed extracts give only a conclusion, and the examples cover different forms of development.
Counted against appeals
Why selected GPDO cases failed
Unproven dormer alternative
The Inspector gave little weight to a claimed permitted-development alternative because no evidence showed it was available or similar to the built dormer.
Appearance conclusion without detail
The selected conclusions say the proposals failed character-and-appearance aims, but do not set out why.
Helped or needed
What passed Wandsworth GPDO checks
Class AA requirements were met
The Council concluded the scheme met Class AA and would be permitted development, subject to stated prior-approval matters.
A GPDO restriction cleared
The selected conclusion says a single-storey rear extension did not conflict with GPDO paragraph A.1(j)(iii).
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify a specific GPDO condition?
- Can you evidence a permitted-development alternative that is genuinely similar?
- Does the refusal explain the external appearance concern?
The extracts do not establish whether your Wandsworth site meets current GPDO conditions. 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
12 July 2022 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a single storey rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
Therefore, the main issue in this appeal is whether the proposed development would be granted planning permission by Article 3(1), Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Therefore, the proposal would not conflict with paragraph A.1(j)(iii) of the GPDO.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
2 July 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
described as follows: ‘The proposed works will involve the enlargement of an existing single storey studio dwelling. The enlargement will consist of the construction of one additional storey immediately above the roof of the existing property in accordance with Permitted Development. The additional storey shall be constructed only on the principal part (existing roof) of the dwellinghouse.’
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether prior approval should be granted, having particular regard to the effect of the external appearance of the development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The Council concluded that the appeal scheme complies with the requirements of Class AA and would be permitted development, subject to paragraph AA.2. (3) which sets out a number of matters for which prior approval must be sought.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
8 September 2021 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
for a dormer to the rear roof slope.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The appellant has referred to permitted development rights relating to dormer windows. However, there is nothing to suggest that this is an option or that such a scheme would be similar to what has been built. As such, I give that argument limited weight in coming to my decision.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude that the development unacceptably harms the character and appearance of the host property and the area contrary to Policies DMS1 and DMH5 of the Wandsworth Local Plan Development Management [name] (2016) which, amongst other things, seek to ensure that the scale, massing and appearance of a development provides a high quality sustainable design and dormer windows to be sympathetic to the style of the building and not harm either the street scene or the building’s appearance.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
8 August 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
No verified development description was available for this example.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether prior approval should be granted, with particular regard to the effect of the proposal on the external appearance of the dwellinghouse.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore conclude that the external appearance of the dwellinghouse would fail to accord with the objectives of the Framework insofar as they relate to matters of character and appearance, and therefore prior approval should not be granted.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
26 June 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
Proposal is to construct an additional storey on top of the 3-storey building at [site address] . This proposal is to build one additional bedroom and one bathroom to the property in line with the London Plan (2021) accommodation standards.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether prior approval should be granted for the external appearance of the dwellinghouse.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal would fail to satisfy the broad aims of the National Planning Policy Framework in so far as they relate to character and appearance. Therefore, prior approval is refused.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 3