“Part 1 of the GPDO – GENERAL Appeal Decisions” – 8 additional appeal decisions (total = 792) …

The Part 1 of the GPDO - GENERAL Appeal Decisions document has been updated to include 8 additional appeal decisions relating to householder permitted development legislation, for which the conclusions are as follows:

April 2016 - Code a00686 (appeal dismissed):

  • This appeal decision provides an example of where the works are on land that’s shared between neighbouring properties (or similar), and the Inspector concluded that the works do not constitute development within “the curtilage of [a / the] dwellinghouse”.
    [Note: Inspector states that the land “was used [for parking] in association with [the adjoining property] either exclusively or, more probably, in shared use”].
    [Quote: “As, on balance of probability, the garage land was used in association with [the adjoining property] either exclusively or, more probably, in shared use it would not have been land having an intimate association with the appeal dwelling when also taking into account the longevity of such use and the distance of the garage land from the main property. The garage land would not have been land falling within the dwelling curtilage at the application date.”].
  • The “curtilage” of a property can change over time (e.g. it can become larger, smaller, etc).
    [Note: This appeal decision implies (rather than states) this conclusion].
    [Note: Inspector concludes that a particular piece of land is not within the existing curtilage, even though it was within the original curtilage].
  • The phrase “the curtilage of [a / the] dwellinghouse” refers to the curtilage of the “existing” dwellinghouse (i.e. rather than the curtilage of the “original” dwellinghouse).
    [Note: This appeal decision implies (rather than states) this conclusion].

April 2016 - Code a00685 (appeal dismissed):

  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that it is not 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. (*)
    [Note: Inspector indicates that (in theory) face and cheeks of dormer can be similar to walls of main house, but concludes that (in this particular case) the actual materials are not similar].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that brown plain tiles (on the face and cheeks of a side and rear dormer) would not be “of a similar appearance” to brown pan-tiles (on the roof of the main house).
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that brown plain tiles (on the face and cheeks of a side and rear dormer) would not be “of a similar appearance” to terracotta-colour tiles (on the roof of the main house).
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that brown plain tiles (on the face and cheeks of a side and rear dormer) would not be “of a similar appearance” to brown bricks (on the walls of the main house).

March 2016 - Code a00684 (appeal dismissed):

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

March 2016 - Code a00683 (appeal dismissed):

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

March 2016 - Code a00682 (appeal allowed):

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

March 2016 - Code a00681 (appeal allowed):

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

March 2016 - Code a00680 (appeal dismissed):

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

March 2016 - Code a00679 (split decision):

  • [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.