“Part 1 of the GPDO – GENERAL Appeal Decisions” – 14 additional appeal decisions (total = 704) …

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:

September 2015 - Code a00598 (appeal allowed):

  • 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. (*)
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular elevation does not “front” a highway, noting that the elevation and the highway are separated either by a significant distance or by land in different ownership or use.
    [Note: Separated by the garden of another residential property].

September 2015 - Code a00597 (appeal dismissed):

  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular piece of land is not within the “curtilage” of the property.
    [Note: Land is approx 1.5m-5.0m from house, contains garage, and is separated from house by footpath].
  • Furthermore, the above was concluded even though it was accepted that the piece of land is within the “enclosure” / “unit of occupation” / “grounds” / etc of the property.
    [Quote: “There is no dispute that the appellants own the car port and that it is used in connection with their house “in a reasonably useful way”. Frequently a residential curtilage will also equate with the residential planning unit. However it is not unusual for land to be beyond a curtilage, but at the same time to be in the same occupation or ownership, to be used for purposes incidental to the dwelling, and to be within the same residential planning unit.”].

September 2015 - Code a00596 (appeal allowed):

  • “The principal elevation” is not necessarily the elevation that fronts a highway.
  • 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”.
  • Where a property has been converted to a house from another use after 01/07/1948, then this appeal decision states, or implies, that the phrase “original dwellinghouse” means the property as it existed after the conversion (i.e. rather than the property as it existed on 01/07/1948 or, if built after that date, as so built). (*)
    [Quote: “The GPDO referred to the principal elevation of the “original dwelling” – not the “original building”. I have no evidence that, when first converted, the dwelling was served by the original hall’s entrance. I have no reason to believe that the features which have led me to the view on what is the principal elevation did not exist as part of the “original dwelling” when it first came into use.”].

September 2015 - Code a00595 (appeal allowed):

  • Where a proposed extension would be attached to an existing extension, then the phrase “the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse” applies to only the proposed extension. [Note: In other words, only the proposed extension should be assessed against those limitations and conditions of Class A that apply to the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse]. (*)

September 2015 - Code a00594 (appeal dismissed):

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

September 2015 - Code a00593 (appeal dismissed):

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

September 2015 - Code a00592 (appeal dismissed):

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

September 2015 - Code a00591 (appeal dismissed):

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

September 2015 - Code a00590 (appeal dismissed):

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

September 2015 - Code a00589 (appeal dismissed):

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

September 2015 - Code a00588 (appeal allowed):

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

September 2015 - Code a00587 (appeal dismissed):

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

September 2015 - Code a00586 (appeal dismissed):

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

September 2015 - Code a00585 (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.