Town Planner Pro
Search appeal decisions

Planning appeal decision

Dismissed16 April 20243313833

Bridge House, 1A Bridge Way, Ickenham, UXBRIDGE, UB10 8QR

described on the application form as follows: ‘This application relates to a single storey side extension to the house-at ground level meeting permitted development. The house is a detached 4-bedroom property. The material used in the side extension will match the existing house i.e., matching bricks and double glazing. As the plans show; the side extension will be half the width of the original house and only extending up to the original house. The front parapet will have a maximum height of 3.4m with a fibre glass flat roof

Authority
London Borough of Hillingdon
Appeal type
ldc · Lawful Development Certificate
Procedure
Written Representations
Development
residential · Householder developments
Inspector
Hawkins S

Main issues, as the Inspector framed them

  • Whether the Council's refusal to grant a certificate of lawful use or development for the proposal was well-founded, turning on whether planning permission is granted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) at Article 3, Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A

What decided it

The side elevation of the dwelling fronts the highway, and therefore the proposed extension would exceed the limitation in paragraph A.1(e)(ii) of Class A of the GPDO, meaning it cannot be permitted development.

The main issues and the deciding factor are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.

In the app this decision sits on the map beside every other appeal around it, with the full reasoning summary, the letter held on file, and the case law it applies.