“Part 1 of the GPDO – Appeal Decision Summaries” – 6 additional appeal decisions (total = 533 + 42) …

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 6 additional appeal decisions relating to householder permitted development legislation (4 "LDC Appeals", 0 "Enforcement Appeals", and 2 "Prior Approval Appeals"), for which the conclusions are as follows:

"LDC APPEALS" AND "ENFORCEMENT APPEALS":

January 2014 - Code a00455 (split decision):

  • A C4 house in multiple occupation (i.e. a “small HMO”) can benefit from Part 1 of the GPDO. (*)
  • A sui generis house in multiple occupation (i.e. a “large HMO”) can benefit from Part 1 of the GPDO. (*)
  • 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 it was concluded that the fact that works on one part of a building were unlawful would not prevent works on another part of the building from being permitted development. (*)

January 2014 - Code a00454 (appeal dismissed):

  • Where an existing outbuilding is lawful, but already exceeds the tolerances of Class E (e.g. the outbuilding was granted planning permission by the LPA, or was erected under the previous version of Class E, or has become lawful through the passage of time, etc), then it is possible to undertake alterations to this outbuilding under Class E (i.e. alterations that would not affect the dimensions of the outbuilding). (*)
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that particular works to an outbuilding would constitute “the provision … of [an outbuilding]” (i.e. rather than “the maintenance, improvement or other alteration of [an outbuilding]”).

January 2014 - Code a00453 (appeal dismissed):

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

January 2014 - Code a00452 (appeal dismissed):

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

"PRIOR APPROVAL APPEALS":

January 2014 - Code p00042 (appeal dismissed):

  • This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector concluded that the amenity impact of the proposed development would be unacceptable.
    [Length 6.0m, eaves height 2.9m, max height ~3.5m (flat roof)].
    [Dismissed due to loss of outlook / overbearing to side property].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when assessing the amenity impact of the proposed development, did not refer to the Council’s policies. (*)
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when assessing the amenity impact of the proposed development, did not refer to the Council’s guidance. (*)
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when assessing the amenity impact of the proposed development upon an adjoining premises that did not submit an objection, gave relatively limited weight to the fact that the adjoining premises did not submit an objection. (*)
    [Note: Side properties stated that they do not object to the proposals].
    [Quote: “I do not find it to be sufficient to outweigh my concern”].

January 2014 - Code p00041 (appeal dismissed):

  • [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.