England-wide appeal evidence
Permitted development under the GPDO in planning appeals
Compare source-linked planning appeal decisions from across England where the Inspector’s main issue matched the fixed “Permitted development under the GPDO” evidence query, by an exact configured phrase or close semantic meaning.
This page compares planning appeal decisions. It is not a count of planning-application refusal reasons and does not predict what would happen in a different case.
- Matched decision families
- 537
- 542 appeal records represented
- Matched appeal records
- 542
- 168 allowed · 372 dismissed · 2 other
- Decision-text coverage
- 24,060 of 83,947
- 24,107 of 91,212 current appeal records
Local appeal evidence
Find evidence for your council or planning authority
Choose the council or planning authority that decided the application. Local pages are shown only where the published evidence snapshot meets the evidence and source checks.
Choose from 35 councils and planning authorities
- Birmingham City Council8 matched decision families
- Brighton and Hove City Council6 matched decision families
- Cheshire East Council7 matched decision families
- Cheshire West and Chester Council8 matched decision families
- East Hertfordshire District Council5 matched decision families
- Epping Forest District Council9 matched decision families
- Kirklees Council6 matched decision families
- Leeds City Council9 matched decision families
- London Borough of Barking and Dagenham5 matched decision families
- London Borough of Barnet22 matched decision families
- London Borough of Brent5 matched decision families
- London Borough of Bromley5 matched decision families
- London Borough of Croydon9 matched decision families
- London Borough of Ealing9 matched decision families
- London Borough of Haringey8 matched decision families
- London Borough of Harrow11 matched decision families
- London Borough of Havering16 matched decision families
- London Borough of Hillingdon9 matched decision families
- London Borough of Hounslow6 matched decision families
- London Borough of Lambeth5 matched decision families
- London Borough of Lewisham5 matched decision families
- London Borough of Merton6 matched decision families
- London Borough of Newham8 matched decision families
- London Borough of Redbridge20 matched decision families
- London Borough of Richmond upon Thames6 matched decision families
- London Borough of Sutton8 matched decision families
- London Borough of Wandsworth5 matched decision families
- Royal Borough of Greenwich7 matched decision families
- Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames7 matched decision families
- Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead5 matched decision families
- Sheffield City Council5 matched decision families
- Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council5 matched decision families
- Southend-on-Sea Borough Council5 matched decision families
- Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council6 matched decision families
- Wychavon District Council5 matched decision families
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
3 June 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
described as: 6m single storey rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether the proposed development is permitted under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Whilst there is no definition within this part of the GPDO as to how eaves height is calculated, the Permitted Development Rights for Householders: Technical Guidance, updated 10 September 2019 (HTG) states that parapet walls should not be used in eaves height calculations. Moreover, the HTG provides an example, similar to the appellant’s proposed drawing, that shows that eaves height is measured to the top of the flat roof, excluding the parapet. As such, the eaves height in this case would not exceed 3 metres.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
24 February 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a single storey rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether the proposed development would be permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
In order to be permitted development under Class A, the proposal must meet all the limitations and conditions under this Class. [name].1(j) states that the development is not permitted by Class A if the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse and would (i) exceed 4 metres in height, (ii) have more than a single storey, or (iii) have a width greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse.
Paragraph 6 · Source pages 1, 2
10 January 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
4m rear extension with pitched roof, redland 49 tiles to match existing, 2 velux windows, 4m bifold door to rear elevation.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether the proposed development would be permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of GPDO.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
On the basis of the evidence before me, the proposal that would not accord with criterion A.1(j) of Part 1 of Class A. Consequently, the proposed development would not be permitted development under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
23 February 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a single storey brick extension, with a warm tiled pitched roof.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether the proposed development would constitute permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Having regard to all of the above, I conclude that the proposed development would fail to comply with paragraph A.1(j) of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO and so would not constitute permitted development.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
27 June 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the erection of a single storey rear larger home extension, which would project 8.00m from the rear elevation, comprising a maximum height of 4.00m and eaves height of 2.50m.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether the proposed development would be permitted development under Class A of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the GPDO.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
[name].1 (h) states that development is not permitted by Class A if the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would have more than a single storey and (h)(i) extend beyond the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse by more than 3 metres. While the proposal would enlarge the ground floor of the dwelling, the plans indicate that the extension would be joined to the approved first floor enlargement. Consequently, given the requirements of sub-paragraph A.1 (ja). the total enlargement comprising the proposed extension and the approved first floor enlargement, would fail to accord with sub-paragraph A.1 (h) of the GPDO.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2