Town Planner Pro
Search appeal decisions

Planning appeal decision

Notice upheld15 July 20263366809

84 Kingsland Road, LONDON, E13 9PA

Without planning permission, the erection of a rear extension

Authority
London Borough of Newham
Appeal type
enforcement · Enforcement Notice
Procedure
Written Representations
Development
other · Householder developments
Inspector
Lo S

Main issues, as the Inspector framed them

  • Whether the matters alleged in the enforcement notice have occurred as a matter of fact (ground (b))
  • Whether the matters alleged in the enforcement notice constitute a breach of planning control (ground (c))

What decided it

The structure exhibits the necessary degree of permanence to be regarded as a building under the Act and constitutes an extension requiring planning permission, failing to meet permitted development rights under Condition A.3 of the GPDO 2015 due to material differences in appearance from the host dwelling.

Judgments cited: Skerritts of Nottingham Ltd v SSETR (No.2) [2000] 2 PLR 102; Cardiff Rating Authority v Guest Keen Baldwin's Iron and Steel Co Ltd [1949] 1 QB 385

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.