“Part 1 of the GPDO – Appeal Decision Summaries” – 6 additional appeal decisions (total = 540 + 49) …

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":

February 2014 - Code a00462 (appeal dismissed):

  • 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. (*)
  • Furthermore, the above interpretation, as set out by the High Court judgment dated 18/06/2013, applies from the date the legislation came into force (i.e. 01/10/2008), and therefore still applies even if the works were carried out before the date of the High Court judgment. (*)
  • 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]. (*)

February 2014 - Code a00461 (appeal dismissed):

  • Where development is undertaken as a single operation, then it is not possible for part of the development to be permitted development and the other part to be granted planning permission by the LPA. (*)
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that two sets of works were undertaken as a single operation (i.e. rather than as separate operations).
  • In an application for an LDC, the burden of proof is firmly on the applicant.

February 2014 - Code a00460 (appeal allowed):

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

February 2014 - Code a00459 (appeal dismissed):

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

"PRIOR APPROVAL APPEALS":

February 2014 - Code p00049 (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 3.0m/3.9m, eaves height 3m, max height 4m (unknown roof)].
  • 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 it appears that the submitted information was insufficient to be able to fully assess the amenity impact of the proposed development, but the Inspector allowed the appeal without highlighting this issue.
    [Note: Height facing side property unclear (between 3.0m and 4.0m)].

February 2014 - Code p00048 (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.