“GPDO Part 1 Class A (Larger Rear Extensions) – Prior Approval Appeal Decisions” – Additional conclusions added to the 100 prior approval appeals …

From November 2013 until July 2014, a total of 100 "Prior Approval Appeals" have been added to the "GPDO Part 1 Class A (Larger Rear Extensions) - Prior Approval Appeal Decisions" document on this website.  The opportunity has now been taken to review these 100 appeals in more detail, and as a result the following additional conclusions have now been added to the above document:

Insufficient information to be able to fully assess the amenity impact:

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.

  • [Source: November 2013 - Code p00021].
    [Note: Height facing side property unclear (between 2.5m and 2.9m)].
    [Quote: “there is no indication as to ... the height on the side nearest to [the property to the north side]”].
  • [Source: November 2013 - Code p00022].
    [Note: Height facing side property unclear (between 2.5m and 4.0m)].
    [Quote: “it is not possible to come to a fully informed conclusion regarding the impact of the … extension”].
  • [Source: May 2014 - Code p00077].
    [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”].
  • [Source: May 2014 - Code p00080].
    [Note: No info given as to whether there would be any side windows, etc].
    [Quote: “I cannot be certain that there would not be any loss of privacy for the neighbours”].

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, but the Inspector dismissed the appeal without highlighting this issue.
[Note: This conclusion assumes that the developer did not submit additional information (i.e. that was available to the Inspector, but not uploaded to the Planning Inspectorate’s website)].

  • [Source: December 2013 - Code p00032].
    [Note: Height facing side property unclear (between 3.0m and 4.0m)].
  • [Source: January 2014 - Code p00040].
    [Note: Height facing side property unclear (between 2.6m and 3.3m)].

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, but the Inspector allowed the appeal without highlighting this issue.
[Note: This conclusion assumes that the developer did not submit additional information (i.e. that was available to the Inspector, but not uploaded to the Planning Inspectorate’s website)].
[Note: In my opinion, unless such additional information was submitted, the appeal decisions below are highly questionable].

  • [Source: October 2013 - Code p00006].
    [Note: Height facing side property unclear (between 3.0m and 4.0m)].
  • [Source: October 2013 - Code p00010].
    [Note: Height facing side property unclear (between 2.275m & 2.75m)].
  • [Source: February 2014 - Code p00049].
    [Note: Height facing side property unclear (between 3.0m and 4.0m)].
  • [Source: February 2014 - Code p00050].
    [Note: Height facing side property unclear (between 2.4m and 2.8m)].
  • [Source: March 2014 - Code p00052].
    [Note: Height facing side property unclear (between 2.5m and 3.0m)].
  • [Source: May 2014 - Code p00081].
    [Note: Height facing side property unclear (between 3.0m and 3.9m)].

Incorrect measurement for the "height of the eaves":

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

The difference between daylight and sunlight:

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

Height versus a typical boundary fence or wall:

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

Foliage between the application site and the adjoining premises:

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

Notes: