“Part 1 of the GPDO – Appeal Decision Summaries” – 7 additional appeal decisions (total = 560 + 78) …

The Part 1 of the GPDO - PRIOR APPROVAL Appeal Decisions document has been updated to include 7 additional appeal decisions relating to householder permitted development legislation (0 "LDC Appeals", 0 "Enforcement Appeals", and 7 "Prior Approval Appeals"), for which the conclusions are as follows:

"PRIOR APPROVAL APPEALS":

May 2014 - Code p00078 (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/3.0m, eaves height 2.4m, max height 2.8m (unknown roof)].
    [Dismissed due to loss of light / 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, 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 Inspector does not understand the difference between daylight and sunlight, because they indicate that daylight is affected by orientation (i.e. whether the proposed development would be to the north, south, west, or east of the adjoining premises).
    [Quote: “No daylight and sunlight study was submitted with the plans, however, from my observations on site, the orientation of the proposed extension broadly to the east of No 5 would also result in overshadowing of the rear of that property, and a significant reduction in the sunlight and daylight that would penetrate the living/dining room and kitchen, to the detriment of the living conditions of its occupiers.”].

May 2014 - Code p00077 (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 3.0m, max height 3.0m (flat roof)].
    [Dismissed due to info insufficient to assess overlooking].
  • 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, and the Inspector dismissed the appeal whilst highlighting this issue.
    [Note: No info given as to the position and size of any windows, etc].

    [Quote: “it is not possible to ascertain whether overlooking or loss of privacy may result”].

May 2014 - Code p00076 (appeal dismissed):

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

May 2014 - Code p00075 (appeal dismissed):

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

May 2014 - Code p00074 (appeal allowed):

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

April 2014 - Code p00073 (appeal allowed):

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

April 2014 - Code p00072 (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.