“Part 1 of the GPDO – Appeal Decision Summaries” – 8 additional appeal decisions (total = 546 + 58) …

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

"LDC APPEALS" AND "ENFORCEMENT APPEALS":

March 2014 - Code e2014-006 (ground (c) dismissed):

  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular structure would not constitute a “conservatory” for the purposes of A.3(a).
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular structure does constitute a “verandah, balcony or raised platform”.

March 2014 - Code e2014-005 (ground (c) dismissed):

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

"PRIOR APPROVAL APPEALS":

March 2014 - Code p00058 (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 2.85m, max height 2.85m (flat roof)].
    [Dismissed due to loss of outlook / overbearing to side premises].
  • 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 Council’s DM 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 SPG].
  • 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 significantly higher than an existing or typical (1.8m-2.0m) boundary fence or wall. (*)
    [Note: Height of extension facing the side property is 2.85m].
    [Quote: “The proposed extension would project significantly above the boundary fence ...”].

March 2014 - Code p00057 (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 and max height 3.0m/2-storey (mixed 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 Local Plan].
  • 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 in the situation where there is a significant amount of foliage between the application site and the adjoining premises, gave relatively significant weight to the existence of this foliage. (*)
    [Note: Height of extension facing the side property is 3.0m].
    [Quote: “... the effect ... would not be significant due to the height of the existing fence and vegetation ...”].
  • 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)].

March 2014 - Code p00056 (appeal allowed):

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

March 2014 - Code p00055 appeal dismissed):

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

March 2014 - Code p00054 (appeal dismissed):

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

March 2014 - Code p00053 (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.