“Part 1 of the GPDO – Appeal Decision Summaries” – 13 additional appeal decisions (total = 556 + 71) …

The Part 1 of the GPDO - PRIOR APPROVAL Appeal Decisions document has been updated to include 13 additional appeal decisions relating to householder permitted development legislation (0 "LDC Appeals", 0 "Enforcement Appeals", and 13 "Prior Approval Appeals"), for which the conclusions are as follows:

"PRIOR APPROVAL APPEALS":

April 2014 - Code p00071 (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 8.0m, eaves height 3.0m, max height 3.0m (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 indicated extension contrary 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. (*)
  • Where a representation is received after the end of the consultation period (but before the decision has been made), then it should be taken into account.

April 2014 - Code p00070 (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 4.0m, eaves height 2.75m, max height 3.6m (mono-pitch 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 the submitted information stated (or showed) an incorrect measurement for the “height of the eaves” (i.e. based upon the height of the underside of the eaves), and the Inspector repeated this incorrect measurement without correction.
    [Note: Inspector stated eaves height 2.4m, actual height 2.75m].
  • 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 not significantly higher than an existing or typical (1.8m-2.0m) boundary fence or wall. (*)
    [Note: Height of extension facing the side property is approx 2.75m-3.0m].
    [Quote: “... its height would not be significantly greater than the existing high boundary fence”].

April 2014 - Code p00069 (appeal allowed):

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

April 2014 - Code p00068 (appeal allowed):

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

April 2014 - Code p00067 (appeal allowed):

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

April 2014 - Code p00066 (appeal allowed):

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

April 2014 - Code p00065 (appeal dismissed):

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

April 2014 - Code p00064 (appeal allowed):

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

March 2014 - Code p00063 (appeal dismissed):

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

March 2014 - Code p00062 (appeal dismissed):

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

March 2014 - Code p00061 (appeal allowed):

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

March 2014 - Code p00060 (appeal allowed):

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

March 2014 - Code p00059 (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 GPDO - Appeal Decision Summaries document.  Please note that, 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.  Please note that the "Reference Section" within the above document indicates how many appeals have supported and contradicted each particular conclusion.