“Part 1 of the GPDO – Appeal Decision Summaries” – 10 additional appeal decisions (total = 556 + 58) …

The Part 1 of the GPDO - GENERAL Appeal Decisions document has been updated to include 10 additional appeal decisions relating to householder permitted development legislation (10 "LDC Appeals" and 0 "Enforcement Appeals"), for which the conclusions are as follows:

"LDC APPEALS" AND "ENFORCEMENT APPEALS":

April 2014 - Code a00474 (appeal dismissed):

  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that significant weight should be attached to the advice within the DCLG “Permitted development rights for householders - Technical Guidance” document. (*)
  • More than one wall facing the same direction can form “the rear wall” (in the case where the elevation is staggered vertically).
  • More than one wall facing the same direction can be “a wall forming a side elevation” (in the case where the elevation is staggered vertically).
  • Where a proposed first floor extension would be on top of an original ground floor projection, then “the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse” does have “more than one storey” / “more than a single storey”. (*)
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular piece of land is within the “curtilage” of the property.
  • Where an LPA (or Inspector) incorrectly concludes that works would be permitted development and issues an LDC under section 192 (proposed), and the works are carried out in accordance with the LDC, then the works are lawful (i.e. the LDC does provide protection against enforcement action). [Note: This conclusion assumes that the LDC was not revoked, and assumes that there was no material change (in relevant matters) between the time of the application and the date the works were begun].
  • Permitted development rights do not apply to an unlawful building.
  • 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 prevent works on another part of the building from being permitted development. (*)
  • The side wall of an original (part-width) front projection (i.e. the side wall facing the infill area) is “a wall forming a side elevation”.
  • An original side wall that has been (entirely) removed still constitutes “a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse”. (*)

April 2014 - Code a00473 (appeal allowed):

  • For the purposes of the 01/10/2008-05/04/2016 versions of A.1(h), the phrase “any boundary of the curtilage of the dwellinghouse opposite the rear wall of the dwellinghouse” refers to the boundary of the property to the rear, rather than the rear boundary of the host property. [Note: In other words, the term “opposite” within this phrase corresponds to the preceding term “dwellinghouse”, rather than the preceding term “boundary”].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular boundary is not “opposite” the rear wall of the house.

March 2014 - Code a00472 (appeal allowed):

  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular property is a “dwellinghouse”, rather than a “flat”, for the purposes of Part 1 of the GPDO.
  • The height of a structure should be measured from the highest part of the adjacent ground level (i.e. rather than from each part of the adjacent ground level). (*)
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular structure does not constitute a “verandah, balcony or raised platform”.

March 2014 - Code a00471 (appeal allowed):

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

March 2014 - Code a00470 (appeal allowed):

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

March 2014 - Code a00469 (appeal dismissed):

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

March 2014 - Code a00468 (appeal allowed):

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

March 2014 - Code a00467 (appeal allowed):

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

March 2014 - Code a00466 (appeal dismissed):

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

March 2014 - Code a00465 (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. As a member of the Planning Jungle website, you can view the decision notices for all of the appeals within the above document for no extra cost.
  • Any of the above conclusions marked with a "(*)" contradict other appeal decisions. The "Reference Section" within the above document indicates how many appeals have supported and contradicted each particular conclusion.