“Part 1 of the GPDO – GENERAL Appeal Decisions” – 5 additional appeal decisions (total = 765) …

The Part 1 of the GPDO - GENERAL Appeal Decisions document has been updated to include 5 additional appeal decisions relating to householder permitted development legislation, for which the conclusions are as follows:

February 2016 - Code a00659 (appeal dismissed):

  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that the works were begun at a certain point in time.
    [Conclusion: Extension was begun before 15/04/2015].
    [Quote: “The works relied upon for “commencement” comprise the excavation of a trench across the length of an elevation of the proposed extension to contain part of its foundations. From the photographic evidence, and from what I saw at my site visit, I am satisfied that these works are of sufficient substance to be capable of being a commencement of development as a matter of fact and degree, when also taking into account the legal provisions for when development is begun at s56 of the Act. The evidence indicates that the works were carried out during the period that the first LDC application was pending but before the coming into force of the 2015 Order (i.e. before 15 April 2015). Documentary evidence, in the form of a letter from MC Plan and Site Services Ltd confirms the existence of a small section of new foundation when inspected on 14 April 2015. There is no contrary evidence. I am satisfied, on balance of probability, that the trench was excavated when the 1995 Order was in force.”].
  • Whether works are permitted development depends on whether the works comply with the version of the GPDO that was in force on the date the works were begun. (*)
    [Note: This appeal decision implies (rather than states) this conclusion].
    [Quote: “The question to be asked, therefore, in determining whether the deemed permission was lawfully implemented was whether what had been done was in accordance with the permission. If so, the permission would have survived and development could be completed in accordance with it. If not, the permission would have expired on the coming into force of the 2015 Order and the development rights arising from it would have been lost.”].
  • Furthermore, the above conclusion still applies even if the GPDO is amended after the date the works were begun but before the date the works are substantially completed. (*)
    [Note: This appeal decision implies (rather than states) this conclusion].
  • Where works were begun before the GPDO is amended, and an application under section 192 (proposed) is submitted after the GPDO is amended to ask the (hypothetical) question of whether it would be lawful to complete the works, the works should be assessed against the previous version of the GPDO.
    [Note: The applicant started the works pre-15/04/2015, then submitted an application post-15/04/2015 on the basis that it would be lawful to complete the works].
  • This appeal decision states, or implies, that it is possible for an application under section 192 (proposed) to ask the (hypothetical) question of whether it would be lawful (i.e. at the time of the application) to complete works that had already been begun (i.e. before the time of the application).
    [Note: The applicant started the works pre-15/04/2015, then submitted an application post-15/04/2015 on the basis that it would be lawful to complete the works].
  • 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”.
  • “The principal elevation” of a property is not necessarily the same as the “front” of the property.
  • It is the “front” of a property, not “the principal elevation”, that determines which elevations are “a side elevation”.
  • It’s possible for an elevation to be both “the principal elevation” and “a side elevation”.
  • It’s possible for an elevation to be both “the principal elevation” and “the rear wall”.

February 2016 - Code a00658 (appeal dismissed):

  • For the purposes of the 01/10/2008-05/04/2014 version of B.2(b), where a property has an original rear projection with a flat roof, which is at a (slightly) lower level than the eaves of the main rear roof, then B.2(b) would not allow a roof extension that extends from the main rear roof onto the flat roof of the original rear projection. [Note: The roof extension, for the whole of its width, would extend across the line of the original rear eaves]. (*)

February 2016 - Code a00657 (appeal allowed):

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

February 2016 - Code a00656 (appeal allowed):

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

February 2016 - Code a00655 (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.