“GPDO Part 1 (All Classes) – LDC Appeal Decisions” and “GPDO Part 1 Class A (Larger Rear Extensions) – Prior Approval Appeal Decisions” – 12 additional appeal decisions (total = 567 + 93) …

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 12 additional appeal decisions relating to householder permitted development legislation (0 "LDC Appeals", 0 "Enforcement Appeals", and 12 "Prior Approval Appeals"), for which the conclusions are as follows:

"PRIOR APPROVAL APPEALS":

June 2014 - Code p00093 (appeal allowed):

Where prior approval is required (i.e. because at least one of the adjoining premises has submitted an objection), it is not necessary to assess the amenity impact of the proposed development upon an adjoining premises that did not submit an objection.
[Note: In my opinion, the above conclusion is questionable, because it directly contradicts the legislation].
[Quote: “The occupiers of [the property to the west side] have had an opportunity to object but have not done so. In these circumstances there is no practical reason for refusing planning permission.”].

June 2014 - Code p00092 (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 7.0m, eaves height 3.0m, max height 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. (*)

June 2014 - Code p00091 (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 4.3m, eaves height 2.5m, max height 3.65m (mono-pitch roof)].
[Dismissed due to loss of light / 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 the Inspector, when assessing the amenity impact of the proposed development upon an adjoining premises that did not submit an objection, gave relatively limited weight to the fact that the adjoining premises did not submit an objection. (*)

June 2014 - Code p00090 (appeal dismissed):

June 2014 - Code p00089 (appeal allowed):

May 2014 - Code p00088 (appeal dismissed):

May 2014 - Code p00087 (appeal dismissed):

May 2014 - Code p00086 (appeal dismissed):

May 2014 - Code p00085 (appeal allowed):

May 2014 - Code p00084 (appeal allowed):

May 2014 - Code p00083 (appeal dismissed):

May 2014 - Code p00082 (appeal dismissed):

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. Please note that the "Reference Section" within the above document indicates how many appeals have supported and contradicted each particular conclusion.

The Planning Jungle website