“Part 1 of the GPDO – GENERAL Appeal Decisions” – 6 additional appeal decisions (total = 972) …

The Part 1 of the GPDO - GENERAL Appeal Decisions document has been updated to include 6 additional appeal decisions relating to householder permitted development legislation, for which the conclusions are as follows:

August 2017 - Code a00866 (appeal dismissed):

  • 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. (*)
    [Note: The time of the application was pre-06/04/2017, the application was determined post-06/04/2017, and the Inspector assessed the works against the pre-06/04/2017 version of the GPDO].
  • Where a house was erected unlawfully but has become lawful through the passage of time (e.g. the 4-year rule), then this this appeal decision states, or implies, that the phrase “original dwellinghouse” means the property as it existed on the date the LPA issued an LDC confirming that the house has become lawful (i.e. rather than the property as it existed on the date the house became lawful).
    [Note: In my opinion, the above conclusion is questionable].
    [Note: The property was previously a caravan (i.e. not a “building”), then was extended (and altered) so that it became a house (i.e. a “building”), and then became lawful as a house through the passage of time (e.g. the 4-year rule)].
    [Quote: “The caravan was not brought to the land until around 1960 so there is no suggestion that the “original dwellinghouse” pre-dates 1948. I cannot see that the caravan, to start with, constituted the “original dwellinghouse” because it was a use of the land and lacked the necessary degree of permanence to be a building. It is only because of the rear and side extensions that have been added and other alterations that have been carried out that the caravan has become a building over the passage of time. The Council considers that the “original dwellinghouse” is the building as existed at the time it issued the LDC in 2015, the dwellinghouse at that time having its rear extension together with a side extension and other alterations. This seems to me to be a reasonable position to take in the absence of any other contrary evidence.”].
  • A house that’s become lawful through the passage of time (e.g. the 4-year rule) does benefit from Part 1 of the GPDO.
    [Note: This appeal decision implies (rather than states) this conclusion].
  • More than one wall facing the same direction can be “a wall forming a side elevation” (in the case where the elevation is staggered horizontally).
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a relatively short width of wall is “a wall forming a side elevation”. (*)
    [Note: The wall is single storey, and has width approx 0.9m].
  • The side wall of an original (part-width) rear projection (i.e. the side wall facing the infill area) is “a wall forming a side elevation”. (*)
    [Note: The original rear projection is single storey].
  • For example, an extension to the side of an original (part-width) rear projection where the extension has a width greater than half the width of the original house is not permitted development. (*)
  • For example, an extension to the side of an original (part-width) rear projection within a conservation area (or other article 2(3) land) is not permitted development. (*)
  • An original side wall that has been (entirely) removed still constitutes “a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse”. (*)
    [Note: This appeal decision relates to the side wall of an original (part-width) single storey rear projection].
    [Quote: “The appellant argues that the existing rear extension would be removed and that the new extension should be assessed in the context of the caravan without its existing rear extension. I do not accept that argument. The GPDO explicitly says that the limitations should be applied against the baseline of the “original dwellinghouse”. Case law [Arnold v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2015].] has held, on this point, that where demolition of parts of the original dwellinghouse has occurred it should be disregarded for the purposes of applying the permitted development limitations. Irrespective of whether or not the existing extension is demolished the proposal must still to be assessed against it.”].
  • In the second of the above diagrams, “Extension D” is subject to the “extend beyond” type restrictions in relation to “Wall 2”. [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”].
  • For a property within a conservation area (or other article 2(3) land), A.2(a) not only prevents the cladding of the main house, but also prevents the cladding of an extension.
    [Note: The extension would be “constructed in timber finished with plastic”].

August 2017 - Code a00865 (appeal allowed):

  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that no part of a roof extension “extends beyond” the outside face of an external wall of the original house. [Note: This appeal decision doesn’t correspond to any of the above diagrams]. [Note: The diagrams are viewable within the “Extend beyond” topic of this document]. (*)
    [Note: The roof extension involves building up across the full width of the party wall].
    [Quote: “The reasoning in the Officer’s report is that the proposed dormer would be built on the neighbouring property and so extends beyond the external wall of the original dwellinghouse. I am unable to follow the logic of this reasoning as the party wall, which is being extended upwards, is not an “external wall of the original dwellinghouse”, by definition a party wall in a terraced house must be an internal wall, separating the two dwellings.”].
  • It is possible under Part 1 of the GPDO for a property to erect a structure that covers the full width (or more than half of the width) of the party wall. (*)
    [Note: The Class B extension involves building up across the full width of the party wall].
  • In particular, in reaching the above conclusion, the Inspector noted the “curtilage” of the property does include the full width of the party wall. (*)
    [Note: This appeal decision implies (rather than states) this conclusion].
    [Quote: “The appellant provides a number of appeal decisions dealing with party walls which deal with a separate argument that because the dormer would use the party wall, it would encroach into the curtilage of the neighbouring property and so would fall outside the provisions of Part 1 altogether as this Part deals only with “development within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse”. The appeal decisions show that it is generally understood that in the case of party walls the curtilages of neighbouring dwellings overlap and so Part 1, and in particular, Class B is still relevant.”].

August 2017 - Code a00864 (appeal allowed):

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

August 2017 - Code a00863 (appeal dismissed):

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

August 2017 - Code a00862 (appeal dismissed):

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

August 2017 - Code a00861 (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.