“Part 1 of the GPDO – GENERAL Appeal Decisions” – 3 additional appeal decisions (total = 833) …

The Part 1 of the GPDO - GENERAL Appeal Decisions document has been updated to include 3 additional appeal decisions relating to householder permitted development legislation, for which the conclusions are as follows:

August 2016 - Code a00727 (appeal allowed):

  • 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. (*)
    [Quote: “At the time that the building works commenced, the provisions of the amended 1995 Order applied and the drafting of paragraph A.1(d) was such that it placed no limit on the size of a front extension that could be erected where the principal elevation of the original dwellinghouse did not front a highway.”].
  • 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].
    [Quote: “At the time that the building works commenced, the provisions of the amended 1995 Order applied and the drafting of paragraph A.1(d) was such that it placed no limit on the size of a front extension that could be erected where the principal elevation of the original dwellinghouse did not front a highway.”].
  • 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 LDC application, the subject of this appeal, seeks to establish as lawful the erection of a single storey, full-width extension projecting about 19.5m from the south-facing elevation of the building. The footings have been dug out, but the rest of the development has yet to be completed. [...] At the time that the building works commenced, the provisions of the amended 1995 Order applied and the drafting of paragraph A.1(d) was such that it placed no limit on the size of a front extension that could be erected where the principal elevation of the original dwellinghouse did not front a highway.”].
  • For the purposes of the 01/10/2008-14/04/2015 version of A.1(e) (i.e. A.1(d)), where the principal elevation does not front a highway, an extension under Class A can extend beyond a wall that forms the principal elevation.
  • Furthermore, in such cases, the amount by which the extension can extend beyond the principal elevation does not appear to be directly(*) restricted by Class A. [(*) i.e. other than the general requirement of Part 1 of the GPDO that the extension is within the “curtilage” of the dwellinghouse, and the requirement of A.1(b) that not more than 50% of the original garden is covered by buildings].
    [Note: The extension would have length approx 19.5m].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular piece of land is within the “curtilage” of the property.
    [Note: Land is approx 0m-19.5m from house].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where an application under section 191 (existing) was assessed on the basis of the hypothetical works that are shown on the submitted drawings (i.e. rather than the actual works that have been carried out on the site). (*)
    [Note: The applicant submitted an application under section 191 (existing), but made it clear that they wanted all of the existing and proposed works (i.e. the whole of the extension) to be assessed, rather than only the existing works (i.e. the existing footings)].
  • This appeal decision states, or implies, that it is possible for an application under section 191 (existing) 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, and then submitted an application under section 191 (existing) pre-15/04/2015 (dated 14/04/2015) on the basis that it would be lawful to complete the works].

August 2016 - Code a00726 (appeal dismissed):

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

August 2016 - Code a00725 (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.