The Part 1 of the GPDO - GENERAL Appeal Decisions document has been updated to include 19 additional appeal decisions relating to householder permitted development legislation (19 "LDC Appeals" and 0 "Enforcement Appeals"), for which the conclusions are as follows:
May 2015 - Code a00547 (appeal allowed):
- For an application under section 192 (proposed), the works should be assessed against the version of the GPDO that was in force at the time of the application. (*)
- For example, for an application under section 192 (proposed), if a previous version of the GPDO was in force at the time of the application, but the GPDO is amended by the date the application is determined, then the works should be assessed against the previous version of the GPDO. (*)
- A property that’s in the process of being converted to a house from a different use (i.e. something other than a “dwellinghouse”) does benefit from Part 1 of the GPDO.
- Where a proposed basement extension would be under the original house, 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 significant weight should be attached to the advice within the DCLG “Permitted development rights for householders - Technical Guidance” document. (*)
- 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”].
- It is possible under Part 1 of the GPDO for a property to erect a structure that covers the full width of the party wall. (*)
- The excavation of a basement does fall within the scope of Class A.
- This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that the excavation of a certain volume of earth (i.e. as part of other works) does fall within the scope of Part 1 of the GPDO. (*)
May 2015 - Code a00546 (appeal dismissed):
- For an application under section 192 (proposed), if a previous version of the GPDO was in force at the time of the application, but the GPDO is amended by the date the application is determined, then the works should be assessed against the amended version of the GPDO. (*)
- For the purposes of the post-15/04/2015 version of A.1(e), where the principal elevation does not front a highway, an extension under Class A can not extend beyond a wall that forms the principal elevation.
May 2015 - Code a00545 (appeal dismissed):
- Where a proposed extension would be attached to an existing extension, then the phrase “the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse” applies to the combined structure. [Note: In other words, the combined structure should be assessed against those limitations and conditions of Class A that apply to the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse]. (*)
- Furthermore, the above conclusion still applies even if the existing extension was granted planning permission by the LPA (i.e. rather than erected under government permitted development rights). (*)
May 2015 - Code a00544 (appeal dismissed):
- More than one roof slope facing the same direction can form “the principal elevation”. (*)
- This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a roof slope that is significantly set back from a forward projection of the property does form part of “the principal elevation”.
- In the first of the above diagrams, “Roof Extension A” would not comply with B.1(c). [Note: The diagrams are viewable within the “Extend beyond” topic of this document].
May 2015 - Code a00543 (split decision):
- [Note: To view these conclusions, please log onto the website as a member].
April 2015 - Code a00542 (appeal allowed):
- [Note: To view these conclusions, please log onto the website as a member].
April 2015 - Code a00541 (appeal dismissed):
- [Note: To view these conclusions, please log onto the website as a member].
April 2015 - Code a00540 (appeal allowed):
- [Note: To view these conclusions, please log onto the website as a member].
April 2015 - Code a00539 (appeal dismissed):
- [Note: To view these conclusions, please log onto the website as a member].
April 2015 - Code a00538 (appeal dismissed):
- [Note: To view these conclusions, please log onto the website as a member].
April 2015 - Code a00537 (appeal dismissed):
- [Note: To view these conclusions, please log onto the website as a member].
April 2015 - Code a00536 (appeal dismissed):
- [Note: To view these conclusions, please log onto the website as a member].
April 2015 - Code a00535 (appeal allowed):
- [Note: To view these conclusions, please log onto the website as a member].
April 2015 - Code a00534 (appeal dismissed):
- [Note: To view these conclusions, please log onto the website as a member].
April 2015 - Code a00533 (appeal dismissed):
- [Note: To view these conclusions, please log onto the website as a member].
April 2015 - Code a00532 (appeal dismissed):
- [Note: To view these conclusions, please log onto the website as a member].
April 2015 - Code a00531 (appeal dismissed):
- [Note: To view these conclusions, please log onto the website as a member].
March 2015 - Code a00530 (appeal dismissed):
- [Note: To view these conclusions, please log onto the website as a member].
March 2015 - Code a00529 (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 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.