“Part 1 of the GPDO – GENERAL Appeal Decisions” – 15 additional appeal decisions (total = 743) …

The Part 1 of the GPDO - GENERAL Appeal Decisions document has been updated to include 15 additional appeal decisions relating to householder permitted development legislation, for which the conclusions are as follows:

January 2016 - Code a00637 (appeal dismissed):

  • The height of a structure should be measured from the highest part of the adjacent ground level (i.e. rather than from each part of the adjacent ground level). (*)
    [Note: The structure is an outbuilding].
  • 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: Rear garden is “slightly sloping” and contains raised hardstanding.  However, the submitted drawings show the proposed outbuilding as 2.5m above a horizontal level that isn’t annotated (i.e. as either the level of the hardstanding or the level of the grass)].

January 2016 - Code a00636 (appeal dismissed):

  • 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 on 01/07/1948 or, if built after that date, as so built (i.e. rather than the property as it existed after the conversion). (*)
    [Note: The building was erected as a side extension to number “30”, and then became lawful as a separate house (number “30a”) via the passage of time (i.e. the 4-year rule).  The Inspector concluded that “if permitted development rights were applicable at all, they should have been interpreted taking number 30 as the “original dwellinghouse” rather than the appeal property”].
    [Quote: “The Order interpreted an “original” building as being a building as it existed on 1 July 1948 or as it was first built, if after that date. It is significant that the Order interpreted “original” in terms of the built development and not in terms of any commencement of use or change of use.”].
  • 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]. (*)
  • In the above diagram, “Extension K” would be subject to the “extend beyond” type restrictions in relation to “Wall 1”. [Note: The diagrams are viewable within the “Extend beyond” topic of this document]. (*)
    [Note: This appeal decision relates to “a wall forming a side elevation”].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular elevation does “front” a highway, even though there’s a significant angle between the elevation and the highway.
    [Note: The angle is approx 45 degrees].

January 2016 - Code a00635 (appeal dismissed):

  • This appeal decision states, or implies, that it is not possible for an application under section 192 (proposed) to ask the (hypothetical) question of whether it would be lawful to first substantially complete one set of works granted planning permission by the LPA, and then (subsequently) start and complete another set of works under permitted development rights.
  • Where development is undertaken as a single operation, then it is not possible for part of the development to be permitted development and the other part to be granted planning permission by the LPA. (*)

December 2015 - Code a00634 (appeal allowed):

  • The height of a structure should be measured from the highest part of the adjacent ground level (i.e. rather than from each part of the adjacent ground level). (*)
    [Note: The structure is an outbuilding].

December 2015 - Code a00633 (appeal dismissed):

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

December 2015 - Code a00632 (appeal dismissed):

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

December 2015 - Code a00631 (appeal dismissed):

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

December 2015 - Code a00630 (appeal dismissed):

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

December 2015 - Code a00629 (appeal allowed):

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

December 2015 - Code a00628 (appeal dismissed):

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

December 2015 - Code a00627 (appeal dismissed):

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

December 2015 - Code a00626 (appeal dismissed):

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

December 2015 - Code a00625 (appeal dismissed):

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

December 2015 - Code a00624 (appeal dismissed):

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

December 2015 - Code a00623 (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.