“Part 1 of the GPDO – Appeal Decision Summaries” – 6 additional appeal decisions (total = 535 + 46) …

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 (2 "LDC Appeals", 0 "Enforcement Appeals", and 4 "Prior Approval Appeals"), for which the conclusions are as follows:

"LDC APPEALS" AND "ENFORCEMENT APPEALS":

February 2014 - Code a00457 (appeal dismissed):

  • Where a property has a secondary roof that’s slightly lower than the main roof, then an extension on top of this secondary roof should be assessed against Class A (i.e. rather than Class B). (*)
  • Where a proposed first floor extension would be on top of an existing (non-original) ground floor extension, then “the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse” does have “more than one storey” / “more than a single storey”.
  • This appeal decision explains the direction in which “width” should be measured for the purposes of A.1(j).

January 2014 - Code a00456 (appeal dismissed):

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

"PRIOR APPROVAL APPEALS":

February 2014 - Code p00046 (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 4.7m, eaves height 3.1m, max height 3.6m (mono-pitch roof)].
    [Dismissed due to loss of light / loss of outlook to side properties].
  • 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 contrary to Council’s Local Plan].
  • 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 contrary to Council’s SPD].
  • 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 property submitted letter of support].
    [Quote: “Notwithstanding the submissions .. I find it would cause limited harm to .. this neighbour”].
  • For the purposes of the 30/05/2013-05/04/2014 version of Part 1 Class A, in the case where an application for prior approval is submitted under condition A.4, but the proposed development would not comply with one of the other limitations or conditions of Part 1 Class A, then this appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector decided the appeal but did not refer to the issue that the works wouldn’t be permitted development.  [Note: In my opinion, it’s likely that the Inspector simply missed this issue (i.e. it’s unlikely that they spotted this issue but decided not to refer to it)].

February 2014 - Code p00045 (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 2.7m, max height 3.95m (dual-pitch roof)].
    [Dismissed due to overshadowing / loss of outlook / overbearing to side properties].
  • 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 property submitted same application for prior approval].
    [Quote: “I have to consider the impact of the proposal within the context of current site circumstances”].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when assessing the amenity impact of the proposed development upon an adjoining premises that had successfully completed the prior approval process (but not yet started works), gave relatively limited weight to the fact that the adjoining premises had successfully completed the prior approval process. (*)
    [Note: Side property has “prior approval not required” decision].

January 2014 - Code p00044 (appeal allowed):

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

December 2013 - Code p00043 (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.