Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over permitted development in Welwyn Hatfield?
See the objections and helpful evidence in selected local GPDO appeal examples.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 6 of 112
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 3
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 3
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 4
- of 6 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: Welwyn Hatfield LPA (51.766929, −0.194096). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council appeal findings
GPDO rights: conditions, purpose and appearance
The selected examples have a different outcome mix from the matched local set. One allowed extract gives only the Inspector’s conclusion.
Counted against appeals
Conditions and room purpose
Earlier condition barred GPDO rights
The Inspector found an earlier permission condition still applied, so the rear extension required planning permission.
Refreshment room was not needed
The Inspector said family exercise and summer socialising could continue without a dedicated indoor refreshment area.
Helped or needed
Evidence supporting GPDO rights
Temporary use could revert
Possible hedge or drainage work did not show the land could not revert after temporary aircraft use.
No external appearance harm
The additional-storey proposals were found not to harm the host building’s external appearance or surroundings.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does your refusal cite a condition restricting GPDO rights?
- Does it explain why each garden-room use is needed at home?
- Does it identify external-appearance harm to the building or surroundings?
The selected examples cover varied GPDO classes, including a temporary aircraft use, so they may not match your proposal. 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
3 examples
8 July 2021 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
use of fields for the take-off and landing private light aircraft.
Issue identified by the Inspector
Schedule 2, Part 4, Class B of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (GPDO) grants planning permission for the use of any land for any purpose for not more than 28 days in total in any calendar year, of which not more than 14 days in total may be for the purposes of (a) the holding of a market; (b) motor car and motorcycle racing including trials of speed, and practising for these activities, and the provision on the land of any moveable structure for the purposes of the permitted use. There are certain limitations to this grant of planning permission. The Council has not raised that any of those are contravened in this case. I have no reasons to disagree. Therefore, the main issue is whether the proposed use would be lawful because it falls within the scope of the planning permission granted by the GPDO.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
It may or may not be the case that a hedgerow or fence might need removing or that the drainage channel presents a problem across one part of the runway’s approximately 355m length. However, given what is set out above, such works, if needed, would not realistically prevent reversion of the land back to its normal use after each temporary use. That is not to say hedgerow or tree removal may not be subject to other controls, or that the local planning authority may not be able to control physical alterations to land-form, for example if they were considered to constitute engineering operations. Nonetheless, for the purposes of this determination, there is nothing as a matter of fact and degree to show that the proposal would not be development permitted by the GPDO.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
2 August 2024 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
an additional storey above the existing dwellinghouse.
Issue identified by the Inspector
Based on the preliminary matters above, the main issues in this appeal are: • Whether the proposal would be permitted development, with particular regard to the limitation in [name].1.(i) of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class AA of the GPDO, and • If the proposal is permitted development subject to prior approval, whether prior approval should be granted under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class AA of the GPDO, having particular regard to the effect of the proposed development on the external appearance of the building.
Paragraph 5 · Source pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
For these reasons, I conclude that the proposal would not have a harmful effect on the external appearance of the host building or its surroundings, and therefore prior approval should be granted under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class AA of the GPDO.
Paragraph 14 · Source page 3
9 November 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
described on the application form as ‘Prior approval for the construction of an additional storey to facilitate the enlargement of the dwellinghouse to a maximum of 12 metres in height’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in this appeal are whether prior approval should be granted having regard to paragraphs AA.2 (3)(a) (i) and (ii) of the GPDO with particular regard to the external appearance of the building and the impact of the proposal on the amenity of the properties at Woodlands, [address], [address], [site address] and [address], [site address] .
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Accordingly, on this main issue, I find that the proposal would not cause harm to the external appearance of the host property or its immediate surroundings. As a result, it would accord with paragraph AA.2 (3)(a) (ii) of the GPDO and, insofar as it is relevant to the subject matter of the prior approval, would not conflict with policies SP1 and SP9 of the Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council Local Plan 2016 – 2036, or the objectives of paragraphs 120 e) and 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2023 (the Framework). These policies, amongst other things, support upward extensions where the development would be consistent with the overall street scene, and seek high quality, beautiful and sustainable buildings that add to the overall quality of the area. 1 GPDO Class AA and “[name]”: CAB Housing Ltd, Beis Noeh Ltd & [name] v SSLUHC [2022] EWHC 208 (Admin) 2 CAB Housing Ltd v SSLUHC & [name] [2023] [name] 194
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
2 examples
10 July 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as “single storey rear extension at 4 metres”
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether the proposal would constitute permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (‘the GPDO 2015’).
Paragraph 5 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Therefore, on the basis of the evidence before me, the limitations set out in Condition 5 of planning permission N6/755/74 continue to apply to the appeal property and having regard to Article 3(4) of the GPDO 2015, the appeal proposal would not benefit from the permitted development rights given by Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO 2015. Therefore, planning permission is required for the proposal.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
12 July 2021 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as “Remove the existing [address] with changing room, bathroom, sauna & store in rear garden. Form new replacement structure to incorporate gym, changing room, sauna, refreshments area & store room. New structure to be 2m, or greater, from the boundary with No.27. Height of outbuilding to be 2.5m from ground level flat roof. All uses in the proposed replacement outbuilding are incidental to the main dwelling, which does not have these uses, such as a gym, etc.”
Issue identified by the Inspector
Schedule 2, Part 1, Class E of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (GPDO) grants planning permission for the provision within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse of any building or enclosure required for a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse as such. The Council has not found any conflict with the limitations under [name].1, E.2 and E.3 of the GPDO. I have no reasons to disagree. Turning, therefore, to the Council’s reason for refusal, whether the purpose of the building would be incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse requires a judgement to be made about if the activity is one that is, as a matter of fact and degree, reasonably required of the primary residential use. This is the main issue.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Whilst not immediately adjacent to the pool, the house is relatively only a short distance away and the opportunity for indoor/outdoor gathering and having refreshments while enjoying the overall garden and pool is already available. Therefore, enjoying space outside by the pool in fine summer weather, including having BBQs would not be dependent on having a dedicated indoor refreshment area. Having a break-out area associated with the pool when used particularly on nice days would presumably be mainly outside as well. Shading could also be provided by other means. All in all, a building without the proposed refreshment space would not mean that the family could not exercise and socialise revolved around summer entertainment.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2