“Part 1 of the GPDO – Appeal Decision Summaries” – 10 additional appeal decisions (total = 518 + 36) …

The Part 1 of the GPDO - GENERAL Appeal Decisions document and the Part 1 of the GPDO - PRIOR APPROVAL Appeal Decisions document have been updated to include 10 additional appeal decisions relating to householder permitted development legislation (6 "LDC Appeals", 0 "Enforcement Appeals", and 4 "Prior Approval Appeals"), for which the conclusions are as follows:

"LDC APPEALS" AND "ENFORCEMENT APPEALS":

December 2013 - Code a00442 (appeal dismissed):

  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a condition (on a previous planning permission), which refers to the GPDO but doesn’t specify individual Classes within the GPDO, does remove permitted development rights.

December 2013 - Code a00441 (appeal dismissed):

  • Where there’s an existing (non-original) extension with a roof that joins onto the roof of the main house, then this existing extension does reduce the volume (i.e. “cubic content”) that remains under B.1(d) for further extensions.
  • Furthermore, the above conclusion still applies even if the roof of the existing extension doesn’t contain any habitable rooms / rooflights / projecting windows / etc.
  • For the purposes of the 01/10/2008-05/04/2014 version of B.2(b), the 20cm set back should be measured from the closest point of the eaves. (*)
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where an Inspector specifically disagrees with the advice within the DCLG “Permitted development rights for householders - Technical Guidance” document. [Note: In this particular case, the Inspector does refer to a court judgment to support the contrary interpretation]. (*)

December 2013 - Code a00440 (appeal allowed):

  • [Note: To view these conclusions, please log onto the website as a member].

December 2013 - Code a00439 (appeal dismissed):

  • [Note: To view these conclusions, please log onto the website as a member].

December 2013 - Code a00438 (appeal dismissed):

  • [Note: To view these conclusions, please log onto the website as a member].

December 2013 - Code a00437 (appeal dismissed):

  • [Note: To view these conclusions, please log onto the website as a member].

"PRIOR APPROVAL APPEALS":

December 2013 - Code p00036 (appeal allowed):

  • This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when assessing the amenity impact for each of two applications for prior approval submitted at the same time by neighbouring properties, gave relatively significant weight to the fact that the impact of each extension upon the other property would be reduced if both extensions are erected. (*)
    [Note: Two separate applications submitted by the same applicant].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector concluded that the amenity impact of the proposed development would be acceptable.
    [Length 6.0m, eaves height 2.65m, max height 3.75m (hipped roof)].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when assessing the amenity impact of the proposed development, referred to the Council’s policies and appeared to give them relatively significant weight. (*)
    [Note: Inspector stated extension complies with Council’s UDP].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when assessing the amenity impact of the proposed development, referred to the Council’s guidance and appeared to give it relatively significant weight. (*)
    [Note: Inspector stated extension complies with Council’s SPD].

December 2013 - Code p00035 (appeal allowed):

  • This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector concluded that the amenity impact of the proposed development would be acceptable.
    [Length 6.0m, eaves height 3.0m, max height 4.0m (dual-pitch roof)].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when assessing the amenity impact of the proposed development, referred to the Council’s policies and appeared to give them relatively significant weight. (*)
    [Note: Inspector stated extension complies with Council’s UDP].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when assessing the amenity impact of the proposed development, referred to the Council’s guidance and appeared to give it relatively significant weight. (*)
    [Note: Inspector stated extension complies with Council’s SPG/SPD].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when assessing the amenity impact of the proposed development, refers to a certain height as being not significantly higher than an existing or typical (1.8m-2.0m) boundary fence or wall. (*)
    [Note: Height of extension facing the side property is approx 2.4m].
    [Quote: “... the proposed extension ... would not be substantially taller than the existing boundary fencing”].

December 2013 - Code p00034 (appeal dismissed):

  • [Note: To view these conclusions, please log onto the website as a member].

December 2013 - Code p00033 (appeal allowed):

  • [Note: To view these conclusions, please log onto the website as a member].

Notes:

  • To view the conclusions, full summaries, and decision notices for any of the above appeals, please view the Part 1 of the GPDO - GENERAL Appeal Decisions document and the Part 1 of the GPDO - PRIOR APPROVAL Appeal Decisions document. As a member of the Planning Jungle website, you can view the decision notices for all of the appeals within the above documents for no extra cost.
  • Any of the above conclusions marked with a "(*)" contradict other appeal decisions. The "Reference Section" within the above documents indicates how many appeals have supported and contradicted each particular conclusion.