“Part 1 of the GPDO – GENERAL Appeal Decisions” – 7 additional appeal decisions (total = 784) …

The Part 1 of the GPDO - GENERAL Appeal Decisions document has been updated to include 7 additional appeal decisions relating to householder permitted development legislation, for which the conclusions are as follows:

March 2016 - Code a00678 (2 x 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. (*)
    [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].
  • For the purposes of the post-15/04/2015 version of Part 1 of the GPDO, the term “highway” can apply to an unadopted road (i.e. a “private” road that’s not maintainable at the public expense).
  • For the purposes of the post-15/04/2015 version of Part 1 of the GPDO, the term “highway” can apply to a cul-de-sac.
  • For the purposes of the post-15/04/2015 version of Part 1 of the GPDO, this appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular way or piece of land is a “highway”.
    [Note: Unadopted cul-de-sac providing vehicular access to front of properties].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector highlights the difference between a private way and a private driveway.
    [Quote: “The officer’s report fails to appreciate is that there is a distinction to be drawn between a private way and a private driveway. Plainly, if no distinction were intended, the same word would have been used in both the Order and in the Technical Guidance. It follows that if a private way is to be regarded as the ‘highway’ for the purposes of the Order, then a private driveway is to be regarded as something different from a private way. There is no definition in legislation of a ‘private driveway’, so for the purposes of this appeal I would accord it a commonsense meaning as a private road for vehicles that connects a house or garage to the highway.”].

March 2016 - Code a00677 (appeal dismissed):

  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that zinc cladding (on the face and cheeks of a rear dormer) would not be “of a similar appearance” to clay tiles (on the roof of the main house).
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that it is necessary for the materials used for a particular element (e.g. walls, roofs, windows, etc) of the new works to be “of a similar appearance” to the materials used for the equivalent element of the existing house. (*)
    [Conclusion: Face and cheeks of dormer can’t be similar to walls of main house (i.e. walls of single storey rear extension)].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that it is necessary for the materials used for the new works to be “of a similar appearance” to the predominant materials of the existing house (i.e. it is not sufficient to be similar to the materials used on only a minority part of the existing house). (*)
    [Conclusion: Face and cheeks of dormer can’t be similar to lead flashing on chimney].

March 2016 - Code a00676 (appeal dismissed):

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

March 2016 - Code a00675 (appeal dismissed):

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

March 2016 - Code a00674 (2 x appeal dismissed):

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

March 2016 - Code a00673 (appeal dismissed):

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

March 2016 - Code a00672 (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.