The "GPDO Part 1 (All Classes) - LDC Appeal Decisions" document and the "GPDO Part 1 Class A (Larger Rear Extensions) - Prior Approval Appeal Decisions" document have been updated to include 7 additional appeal decisions relating to householder permitted development legislation (2 "LDC Appeals", 2 "Enforcement Appeals", and 3 "Prior Approval Appeals"), for which the conclusions are as follows:
"LDC APPEALS" AND "ENFORCEMENT APPEALS":
March 2014 - Code e2014-004 (ground (c) dismissed):
- This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular piece of land is not within the “curtilage” of the property.
- This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular elevation does “front” a highway, even though the elevation and the highway are separated either by a significant distance or by land in different ownership or use.
March 2014 - Code e2014-003 (ground (c) dismissed):
- This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular roof extension would not constitute a “hip-to-gable enlargement” for the purposes of B.2(b).
- 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]. (*)
February 2014 - Code a00464 (appeal dismissed):
- [Note: To view these conclusions, please log onto the website as a member].
February 2014 - Code a00463 (appeal dismissed):
- [Note: To view these conclusions, please log onto the website as a member].
"PRIOR APPROVAL APPEALS":
March 2014 - Code p00052 (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 4.6m/2.2m, eaves and max height 2.5m or 3.0m (flat 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 2.5m and 3.0m)].
March 2014 - Code p00051 (appeal dismissed):
- [Note: To view these conclusions, please log onto the website as a member].
February 2014 - Code p00050 (appeal allowed):
- [Note: To view these conclusions, please log onto the website as a member].
Notes:
- To view the conclusions, summaries, and decision notices for any of the above appeals, please view the "GPDO Part 1 (All Classes) - LDC Appeal Decisions" document and the "GPDO Part 1 Class A (Larger Rear Extensions) - Prior Approval Appeal Decisions" document. As a member of the Planning Jungle website, you can view the decision notices for all of the appeals on the website 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.