Examples of scenarios in which the cost of membership to the Planning Jungle website is likely to more than pay for itself:
- Example for Agents: Your client wishes to erect a large (e.g. 50m2) outbuilding to provide a specialist gym facility for their disabled son. The local authority has indicated to you that they would not consider such an outbuilding to be permitted development, on the basis that its dimensions would exceed what could be classed as “incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse”. You use the “Part 1: Incidental Appeal Decisions” document on the Planning Jungle website to find an example of an almost identical situation (reference APP/T5150/X/10/2143084) where an Inspector concluded that such an outbuilding would be permitted development. You present this appeal decision to the local authority, who then decide to issue a certificate of lawfulness. Your membership to the Planning Jungle website has prevented the potential failure of this project, and has avoided the potential loss of your client to another agent.
- Example for Local Authorities: You receive an application for an outbuilding with a mansard type roof – in this case with a flat roof on top and pitched roofs at the sides. The outbuilding would be situated more than 2m away from the boundaries, and the flat top of its roof would be at height 4m. The application is accompanied by an appeal decision (reference APP/R5510/X/10/2135164) in which the Inspector concluded that this type of roof can be up to 4m high. You look in the DCLG “Permitted development for householders – Technical Guidance” (August 2010), and can find no information on this particular situation. However, you then use the “Part 1: Appeal Decision Summaries” document on the Planning Jungle website to look up the conclusion of the above appeal decision, and find that it has been contradicted by three other appeal decisions. You refuse the application, referring to these three other appeal decisions, and the agent decides not to submit an appeal. Your membership to the Planning Jungle website has prevented your local authority from issuing an incorrect decision, and has avoided the potential costs of dealing with the consequences of such an incorrect decision (e.g. complaints from neighbouring residents, ombudsman, judicial review, etc).
Example of the potential costs of not subscribing to the Planning Jungle website:
- Example for Agents AND Local Authorities: In the appeal decision APP/X2220/X/11/2144338, the applicant proposed the installation of solar panels on the front roof slope of their house, which is situated within a conservation area. The application was submitted in November 2010, more than 2 years after Part 40 Class A was amended to remove the direct restriction against such works. In the refusal of the application, and in the dismissal of the subsequent appeal, it appears that neither the agent, nor the local authority, nor the Inspector, was aware of the current up-to-date version of the legislation. Indeed, the local authority’s decision notice and the Inspector’s decision notice both referred to the superseded part of the legislation as the sole reason for refusing the application. In this situation, the agent could have potentially lost their client, the local authority left themselves open to a potential application for costs, and the Inspector left himself open to a potential application for judicial review. All of these potential costs could have been easily avoided if any of the parties had used the consolidated version of the GPDO 1995 on the Planning Jungle website, which clearly shows exactly how and when the legislation has been amended.