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:
April 2018 - Code a00930 (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: “The 2015 GPDO, which came into force on 15 April 2015, includes a limit to the depth of an extension to the principal elevation of a dwelling to be built under Class A permitted development rights. To preserve their position regarding the construction of an extension under the provisions of the 1995 GPDO the Appellants dug a foundation trench about 24 metres away from the east elevation (they also dug a trench some distance from the south elevation but this is not relevant). The digging of a “…trench which is to contain the foundations, or part of the foundations, of a building” is listed as a material operation in Section 56(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the Act) and the Council does not dispute the Appellants claim that the trench was dug on 7 April 2015, before the 1995 GPDO was superseded. The construction of the proposed extension to [the application site] was commenced in accordance with Section 56 of the Act and when the 1995 GPDO was in force. The proposed extension would thus be lawful if the east elevation of [the application site] is its principal elevation and if the development does not include works that constitute a separate engineering operation.”]. - For example, if a previous version of the GPDO was in force on the date the works were begun, but the GPDO is amended by the date the works are substantially completed, then the works should be assessed against the previous version of the GPDO. (*)
[Quote: “The 2015 GPDO, which came into force on 15 April 2015, includes a limit to the depth of an extension to the principal elevation of a dwelling to be built under Class A permitted development rights. To preserve their position regarding the construction of an extension under the provisions of the 1995 GPDO the Appellants dug a foundation trench about 24 metres away from the east elevation (they also dug a trench some distance from the south elevation but this is not relevant). The digging of a “…trench which is to contain the foundations, or part of the foundations, of a building” is listed as a material operation in Section 56(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the Act) and the Council does not dispute the Appellants claim that the trench was dug on 7 April 2015, before the 1995 GPDO was superseded. The construction of the proposed extension to [the application site] was commenced in accordance with Section 56 of the Act and when the 1995 GPDO was in force. The proposed extension would thus be lawful if the east elevation of [the application site] is its principal elevation and if the development does not include works that constitute a separate engineering operation.”]. - Where works were begun before the GPDO is amended, and an application under section 191 (existing) is submitted after the GPDO is amended to ask the (hypothetical) question of whether it would be lawful to complete the works, then the works should be assessed against the previous version of the GPDO.
[Note: The works were begun pre-15/04/2015, the time of the application was post-15/04/2015, and the Inspector assessed the works against the pre-15/04/2015 version of the GPDO]. - This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that the works were begun by a certain point in time.
[Conclusion: The extension was begun before 15/04/2015].
[Quote: “To preserve their position regarding the construction of an extension under the provisions of the 1995 GPDO the Appellants dug a foundation trench about 24 metres away from the east elevation (they also dug a trench some distance from the south elevation but this is not relevant). The digging of a “…trench which is to contain the foundations, or part of the foundations, of a building” is listed as a material operation in Section 56(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the Act) and the Council does not dispute the Appellants claim that the trench was dug on 7 April 2015, before the 1995 GPDO was superseded. The construction of the proposed extension to [the application site] was commenced in accordance with Section 56 of the Act and when the 1995 GPDO was in force.”]. - For the purposes of the 01/10/2008-14/04/2015 version(s) of A.1(e) (i.e. A.1(d)), where the principal elevation does not front a highway, then 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 extends beyond the principal elevation by approx 24.0m]. - This appeal decision provides an example of the types of factors that should be taken into consideration when determining which elevation is “the principal elevation”.
- This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that the infilling of a certain volume of earth (i.e. as part of other works) does fall within the scope of Part 1 of the GPDO. (*)
[Note: Significant volume of earth would be infilled during the erection of an extension].
[Quote: “The east wall of the revised extension would be built off the foundation to be poured in the trench that commenced the development. Furthermore, all building developments require some excavation, for foundations, ground floor slabs and other elements of the works, and it is to be expected, for a development on sloping ground such as to the east of the existing cottage, that there will be a degree of ‘cut and fill’ to facilitate the works. The extent of cut and fill in this case, as illustrated on the aforementioned drawing, is no more than would be expected and does not amount to a separate engineering operation.”]. - 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 trench)]. - 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) post-15/04/2015 on the basis that it would be lawful to complete the works].
April 2018 - Code a00929 (appeal dismissed):
- Where a property has a secondary roof that’s slightly lower than the main roof, then an extension on top of this secondary roof should be assessed against Classes A and B. (*)
[Note: The secondary roof is the roof of an original two-storey rear projection on a two-storey house]. - For the purposes of the post-06/04/2014 version(s) of Part 1 of the GPDO, where a property has an original rear projection with a side-facing pitched roof, all of which is lower than the main rear roof, then an “L”-shaped roof extension (or similar) that extends from the main rear roof onto the side roof of the original rear projection is not permitted development. [Note: The roof extension, for all of its (rearmost) width, extends across the original rear eaves]. (*)
[Conclusion: The works should be assessed against Classes A and B. The works are contrary to A.1(d) and A.1(i) of the GPDO 2015].
April 2018 - Code a00928 (appeal dismissed):
- The excavation of a basement does fall within the scope of Class E.
[Note: The basement is underneath an outbuilding]. - It is possible for works that involve engineering operations to fall within the scope of Part 1 of the GPDO. (*)
[Quote: “It is clear to me that the proposed basement would be part and parcel of the storage building. It would be contiguous with the floorspace dimensions of the ground floor of the outbuilding and there would be an internal staircase connecting the two floors. The basement would form part of and be integral to the storage building and whilst there would undoubtedly be some engineering works (e.g. digging out) undertaken to facilitate the formation of the basement/the resultant building, in this case, I do not consider that this would amount to a separate engineering operation requiring planning permission. As a matter of fact and degree, I consider that the proposed development would amount to Class E development.”]. - This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that particular engineering operations do not constitute a separate activity of substance (e.g. with reference to the “Eatherley” High Court judgment dated 02/12/2016).
[Quote: “It is clear to me that the proposed basement would be part and parcel of the storage building. It would be contiguous with the floorspace dimensions of the ground floor of the outbuilding and there would be an internal staircase connecting the two floors. The basement would form part of and be integral to the storage building and whilst there would undoubtedly be some engineering works (e.g. digging out) undertaken to facilitate the formation of the basement/the resultant building, in this case, I do not consider that this would amount to a separate engineering operation requiring planning permission. As a matter of fact and degree, I consider that the proposed development would amount to Class E development. I acknowledge that the Council does not share the above view and has referred to the Eatherly case. However, this case is not directly comparable in so far that it refers to a different class of development in the Order. Furthermore, the case simply indicates that a basement could amount to a separate engineering operation, but such a judgment would need to be made on a fact and degree basis.”]. - This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that the excavation of a certain volume of earth (i.e. as part of other works) does fall within the scope of Part 1 of the GPDO. (*)
[Note: Approx 234m3 would be excavated during the creation of a basement].
April 2018 - Code a00927 (appeal dismissed):
- [Note: To view these conclusions, please log onto the website as a member].
April 2018 - Code a00926 (appeal allowed):
- [Note: To view these conclusions, please log onto the website as a member].
April 2018 - Code a00925 (appeal allowed):
- [Note: To view these conclusions, please log onto the website as a member].
April 2018 - Code a00924 (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.