“Part 1 of the GPDO – GENERAL Appeal Decisions” – 7 additional appeal decisions (total = 1,005) …

The Part 1 of the GPDO - GENERAL Appeal Decisions document has been updated to include 7 additional appeal decisions relating to householder permitted development legislation, for which the conclusions are as follows:

January 2018 - Code a00899 (split decision):

  • Where a hard surface (under Class F) would provide access to a structure that would not be lawful, then an LDC for the hard surface should not be refused on this basis. (*)
    [Conclusion: The assessment of whether the proposed hard surface is permitted development is not affected by whether the proposed outbuilding is permitted development].
    [Quote: “There is no requirement within the GPDO that the hard surface has to be required in connection with or associated with some development permitted by a different Part or Class of the Order. The Council’s conclusion that it would not be permitted development because, in its view, the buildings are not permitted by Class E, is incorrect in law. The area of land proposed for a hard surfaced area is, in my view, permitted by Part 2 Class F of the GPDO and I shall grant an LDC for that part of the proposed development.”].

January 2018 - Code a00898 (appeal allowed):

  • This appeal decision provides an example of where a property has a (relatively minor) projecting element that the Inspector concluded is not “a wall forming a side elevation”.
    [Note: The projecting element is an angled bay window (with length approx 0.5m) on the rear elevation at ground floor level].

December 2017 - Code a00897 (appeal allowed):

  • This appeal decision states, or implies, that where a roof extension involves building up the flank wall(s) of the main house (e.g. a hip-to-gable roof extension, or a full-width rear dormer, etc), then it is possible for the materials used for the flank wall(s) of the roof extension to be “of a similar appearance” to either the walls or the roof of the existing house.
    [Note: This appeal decision implies (rather than states) this conclusion].
  • The term “eaves” does not apply to the verge (or rake) of a pitched roof. (*)
  • Where works exceed the tolerances of permitted development and have been substantially completed (i.e. unlawfully), then it is possible to alter the works so that they become permitted development. (*)
    [Note: This appeal decision implies (rather than states) this conclusion].
    [Quote: “The description of development ,“Following the demolition of parapet wall…”, makes complete sense when this is treated as a section 192 appeal and, noting that the Council approached the application on this basis, it must follow that the reason I have given for rejecting the ground (c) appeal is not in issue here. [...] For the reasons given, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that subject to the demolition of the parapet wall, as shown on drawing No LYN1/202, the building operations would be permitted development by virtue of Article 3 and Class B of Part 1 to Schedule 2 of the 2015 Order.”].
  • 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 roof extension following the removal of the raised parapet wall) to be assessed, rather than only the existing works (i.e. the roof extension including the raised parapet wall)].

December 2017 - Code a00896 (appeal dismissed):

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

December 2017 - Code a00895 (appeal dismissed):

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

December 2017 - Code a00894 (appeal dismissed):

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

December 2017 - Code a00893 (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.