“Part 1 of the GPDO – GENERAL Appeal Decisions” – 17 additional appeal decisions (total = 873) …

The Part 1 of the GPDO - GENERAL Appeal Decisions document has been updated to include 17 additional appeal decisions relating to householder permitted development legislation, for which the conclusions are as follows:

November 2016 - Code a00767 (appeal allowed):

  • 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].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a s106 agreement (on a previous planning permission), which removes permitted development rights under a previous version of the GPDO but doesn’t refer to subsequent versions of the GPDO, does not remove permitted development rights under the current version of the GPDO.
    [Note: Relates to s52 of the TCPA 1971, rather than s106 of the TCPA 1990].
    [Quote: “The Council acknowledges that the wording of the s52 Agreement “could, for clarity, have included reference…to future versions of the Order.” In my experience, it is normal for conditions and obligations restricting PD rights to refer to the Order then in force and “any order revoking, re-enacting or modifying that Order.” However, this s52 Agreement used no such form of words. It refers exclusively to the 1988 GDO and, under it, the covenantor cannot be deemed to have surrendered PD rights granted by subsequent Orders, including the 2008 GPDO.”].
  • 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.

November 2016 - Code a00766 (appeal dismissed):

  • 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]. (*)
  • Furthermore, the above conclusion still applies even if the existing extension was granted planning permission by the LPA (i.e. rather than erected under government permitted development rights). (*)

November 2016 - Code a00765 (appeal dismissed):

  • 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]. (*)
  • Where part of an extension would extend beyond an original side wall, the restrictions of A.1(j) would apply to the entire extension (i.e. not only to that part of the extension that extends beyond the original side wall). (*)
  • For example, where part of an extension would extend beyond an original side wall, the overall width of the (entire) extension can not be “greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse”, even if the part of the extension that extends beyond the original side wall would not do so by more than half the width of the house. (*)
  • In the first of the above diagrams, “Extension A” 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”].

November 2016 - Code a00764 (appeal allowed):

  • 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. (*)
    [Conclusion: Face and cheeks of dormer can be similar to walls of main house].

November 2016 - Code a00763 (appeal dismissed):

  • More than one roof slope facing the same direction can form “the principal elevation”. (*)
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a roof slope that is significantly set back from a forward projection of the property does form part of “the principal elevation”.
  • In the first of the above diagrams, “Roof Extension A” would not comply with B.1(c). [Note: The diagrams are viewable within the “Extend beyond” topic of this document].
    [Note: Roof extension extends directly rearwards onto the corner part of the recessed front roof slope].

November 2016 - Code a00762 (appeal dismissed):

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

November 2016 - Code a00761 (appeal dismissed):

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

November 2016 - Code a00760 (appeal allowed):

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

November 2016 - Code a00759 (appeal dismissed):

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

November 2016 - Code a00758 (appeal dismissed):

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

November 2016 - Code a00757 (appeal dismissed):

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

November 2016 - Code a00756 (appeal dismissed):

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

November 2016 - Code a00755 (appeal allowed):

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

November 2016 - Code a00754 (appeal allowed):

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

November 2016 - Code a00753 (appeal allowed):

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

November 2016 - Code a00752 (appeal dismissed):

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

November 2016 - Code a00751 (appeal allowed):

  • [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.