“Part 1 of the GPDO – GENERAL Appeal Decisions” – 9 additional appeal decisions (total = 662) …

The Part 1 of the GPDO - GENERAL Appeal Decisions document has been updated to include 9 additional appeal decisions relating to householder permitted development legislation (9 "LDC Appeals" and 0 "Enforcement Appeals"), for which the conclusions are as follows:

June 2015 - Code a00556 (appeal dismissed):

  • 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. (*)
  • This appeal decision provides an example of the types of factors that should be taken into consideration when determining which elevation is “the principal elevation”.
  • 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. (*)
  • E.1(c) not only prevents an outbuilding from being directly in front of the principal elevation, but also prevents an outbuilding from being in front of the imaginary line of the principal elevation when extended to either side.
  • It’s possible for an elevation to be both “the principal elevation” and “a side elevation”.
  • E.3 only prevents an outbuilding from being within the area that’s directly in between the side wall of the house and the side boundary. [Note: In other words, E.3 does not prevent an outbuilding from being within the additional area that can be covered if considering the imaginary line of the side wall when extended forwards and rearwards].

June 2015 - Code a00555 (appeal allowed):

  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that UPVC windows (on the main house) would be “of a similar appearance” to timber windows (on the main house).
  • A sui generis house in multiple occupation (i.e. a “large HMO”) can benefit from Part 1 of the GPDO. (*)

June 2015 - Code a00554 (appeal dismissed):

  • For an application under section 192 (proposed), the (hypothetical) question is whether the works would be lawful if begun at the time of the application. (*)
  • 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. (*)
  • Where there’s an existing (non-original) extension with a roof that joins onto the roof of the main house, then this existing extension does reduce the volume (i.e. “cubic content”) that remains under B.1(d) for further extensions.
  • Furthermore, the above conclusion still applies even if the roof of the existing extension doesn’t contain any habitable rooms / rooflights / projecting windows / etc.

June 2015 - Code a00553 (appeal dismissed):

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

May 2015 - Code a00552 (split decision):

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

May 2015 - Code a00551 (appeal dismissed):

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

May 2015 - Code a00550 (appeal allowed):

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

May 2015 - Code a00549 (appeal dismissed):

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

May 2015 - Code a00548 (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.