“Part 1 of the GPDO – GENERAL Appeal Decisions” – 14 additional appeal decisions (total = 690) …

The Part 1 of the GPDO - GENERAL Appeal Decisions document has been updated to include 14 additional appeal decisions relating to householder permitted development legislation (14 "LDC Appeals" and 0 "Enforcement Appeals"), for which the conclusions are as follows:

August 2015 - Code a00584 (appeal dismissed):

  • An application under section 192 (proposed) should be assessed on the basis of the hypothetical works that are shown on the submitted drawings (i.e. rather than the actual works that have been carried out on the site). (*)
  • In an application for an LDC, the burden of proof is firmly on the applicant.
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where the submitted information contained inconsistencies (or similar), and the Inspector concluded that an LDC should be refused on this basis.
    [Note: Width of side extension scales from drawing as exactly half the width of the original house.  However, this dimension is not annotated on the drawing, and the drawing is marked “THIS DRAWING MUST NOT BE SCALED, ONLY WRITTEN DIMENSIONS MUST BE USE”].

August 2015 - Code a00583 (appeal dismissed):

  • This appeal decision provides an example of where a property has an original inset area that’s recessed in relation to certain surrounding elements including a roof or floor above, and it was concluded that the phrase “the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse” does apply to the subsequent enclosure of this inset area. [Note: In other words, the infilling of this inset area should be assessed against those limitations and conditions of Class A that apply to the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse].
    [Note: Area is recessed in relation to roof of porch below, main roof above, and wall to side].
  • More than one wall facing the same direction can form “the principal elevation” (in the case where the elevation is staggered horizontally). (*)
  • More than one wall facing the same direction can form “the principal elevation” (in the case where the elevation is staggered vertically).
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where a property has a forward-facing wall within an original inset area that’s recessed in relation to certain surrounding elements including a roof or floor above, and the Inspector concluded that this wall does form part of “the principal elevation”.
    [Note: Area is recessed in relation to roof of porch below, main roof above, and wall to side].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where a property has a side-facing wall within an original inset area that’s recessed in relation to certain surrounding elements including a roof or floor above, and the Inspector concluded that this wall is “a wall forming a side elevation”.
    [Note: Area is recessed in relation to roof of porch below, main roof above, and wall to side].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a relatively short width of wall is “a wall forming a side elevation”.
    [Note: The wall is at first floor level, and has a width of approx 0.64m].
  • In the second of the above diagrams, “Extension D” would be subject to the “extend beyond” type restrictions in relation to “Wall 2”. [Note: The diagrams are viewable within the “Extend beyond” topic of this document].
    [Note: This appeal decision relates to “the principal elevation”].
    [Note: This appeal decision relates to “a wall forming a side elevation”].

August 2015 - Code a00582 (appeal allowed):

  • The installation of a Velux cabrio rooflight (i.e. a rooflight that opens to form a balcony) should be assessed against Class C (i.e. rather than Class B).
  • A Velux cabrio rooflight (i.e. a rooflight that opens to form a balcony) does not constitute a “verandah, balcony or raised platform”.
    [Conclusion: Velux cabrio rooflight is NOT a “balcony” (albeit not directly stated whether “verandah” or “raised platform”)].

August 2015 - Code a00581 (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. (*)
    [Conclusion: The time of the application was pre-15/04/2015 and therefore the works should be assessed against the pre-15/04/2015 version of the GPDO].
  • It is possible for works that involve engineering operations to fall within the scope of Part 1 of the GPDO. (*)
    [Quote: “On this basis is seems to me that, particularly in proposals such as this involving enlargement of a dwellinghouse by the creation of a basement, there is a fine line between building and engineering operations and that both types of operations can be found in works that are permitted by Class A. Class A permitted development rights are described as ‘development within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse’ and are not confined to building operations alone by any of the specified conditions, exceptions and limitations; nor are engineering operations specifically excluded from permitted development rights in Class A.”].
  • 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. (*)
    [Note: Approx 36m3 would be excavated during creation of basement].

August 2015 - Code a00580 (appeal allowed):

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

August 2015 - Code a00579 (appeal allowed):

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

August 2015 - Code a00578 (appeal dismissed):

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

August 2015 - Code a00577 (appeal allowed):

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

August 2015 - Code a00576 (appeal dismissed):

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

August 2015 - Code a00575 (appeal dismissed):

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

August 2015 - Code a00574 (appeal dismissed):

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

August 2015 - Code a00573 (appeal dismissed):

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

July 2015 - Code a00572 (appeal allowed):

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

July 2015 - Code a00571 (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.