“Part 1 of the GPDO – GENERAL Appeal Decisions” – 6 additional appeal decisions (total = 981) …

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:

October 2017 - Code a00875 (1 x split decision, 1 x appeal dismissed):

  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular structure is part of the “dwellinghouse”.
    [Note: Relates to Part 1 Class A paragraph A.1(f) of the GPDO 2015].
    [Note: The structure is a single storey WC or coal shed, which is attached to the main house, albeit without an internal door].
  • An original rear wall that has been (entirely) removed still forms part of “the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse”.
    [Note: This appeal decision relates to the rear wall of an original single storey side infill projection].
    [Quote: “The Council also argue that as the [original side projection] has been demolished, its rear wall could not be taken into consideration. The way permitted development works is that the ‘original’ building is used as a basis for measurements and the fact that some changes are made does not mean that the original wall positions should now be ignored for measurement purposes. The development is permitted if the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would have a single storey and would extend beyond the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse by no more than 3 metres in the case of a semi-detached house. It is clear that it is the original dwellinghouse that is to be considered for measuring purposes. ‘Original’ means a building as it existed on 1 July 1948 where it was built before that date, and it is acknowledged that is the case with the appeal building. I therefore conclude that the presence of the [original side projection] is to be taken into consideration for the purposes of assessing the permitted development rights, but it is for the applicant to demonstrate what the original arrangement would have been on the balance of probability.”].
  • In an application for an LDC, the burden of proof is firmly on the applicant.
  • In the fourth of the above diagrams, “Extension J” is subject to the “extend beyond” type restrictions in relation to “Wall 1” and “Wall 2”. [Note: The diagrams are viewable within the “Extend beyond” topic of this document].
    [Note: This appeal decision relates to “the rear wall”].
    [Note: The gap between the extension and “Wall 2” is approx 4.4m].
  • More than one wall facing the same direction can form “the rear wall” (in the case where the elevation is staggered horizontally). (*)
  • This appeal decision states, or implies, that where the existing building is unlawful (e.g. due to an unlawful extension, etc), it is possible for an application under section 192 (proposed) to ask the (hypothetical) question of whether it would be lawful to first make the existing building lawful (e.g. by removing the unlawful extension, etc), and then (subsequently) start and complete another set of works under permitted development rights. (*)
    [Note: The Inspector issued an LDC for the demolition of the existing unlawful extensions followed by the erection of a proposed roof extension].
    [Note: The existing unlawful works are the subject of an enforcement notice].
    [Quote: “The building has been altered and extended in the past and has been the subject of enforcement action and extant enforcement notices are in place. This decision does not affect the validity of those notices and only deals with the development proposed in the two LDC applications now before me, which are for proposed development. The appellant noted at the hearing that the basis of the proposed development in the LDC applications is that the extant enforcement notices are to be complied with and demolitions undertaken in accordance with those notices, prior to the proposed development commencing.”].

October 2017 - Code a00874 (appeal allowed):

  • Class A does allow an extension with a roof that joins onto the roof of the main house. (*)
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a Class A extension with a roof that joins onto the roof of the main house should also be assessed against Class C (without applying the 15cm projection limit of C.1(b)) and not Class B. (*)
    [Note: The roof of the extension does not contain a habitable room].

September 2017 - Code a00873 (appeal allowed):

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

September 2017 - Code a00872 (appeal dismissed):

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

September 2017 - Code a00871 (appeal allowed):

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

September 2017 - Code a00870 (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.