The Part 1 of the GPDO - GENERAL Appeal Decisions document has been updated to include 8 additional appeal decisions relating to householder permitted development legislation, for which the conclusions are as follows:

May 2018 - Code a00938 (split decision):

• This appeal decision provides an example of where the operational development (subject of the application for an LDC) might form part of a change of use (for which planning permission has not been granted), and the Inspector concluded that an LDC should not be refused on this basis. (*)
  [Note: Change of use from sui generis HMO (with 8 bedrooms) to sui generis HMO (with 9 bedrooms)].
  [Quote: “The description of the proposal on the application form is set out in the banner heading above. The description only refers to proposed operations. On the application form, the answer to the question as to whether the proposal consisted of or included a change of use of land or buildings is given in the negative. Therefore, a material change of use did not form part of the application. The plans accompanying the application show the internal layout of the appeal property being reconfigured to increase the number of bedrooms from eight to nine. I acknowledge that case law has established the principle that operations are capable of being integral to or a part and parcel of a material change of use. The Council also referred to recent Section 78 appeals in its area where the roof alterations involved were taken to be part and parcel of a material change to a more intensive residential use. Nevertheless, by refusing to grant the Certificate on the basis that the proposed operations would facilitate a material change of use, the Council’s decision went beyond the scope of what was actually applied for. Consequently, I intend to deal with the appeal on the basis of the proposed operations described on the application form. It is open to the appellant to apply to have the question of whether there would be a material change of use due to an increase in the number of occupiers of the property determined under Section 191 or 192 of the Act. Any such application would be unaffected by my determination of this appeal.”].
• A sui generis house in multiple occupation (i.e. a “large HMO”) can benefit from Part 1 of the GPDO. (*)
  [Quote: “The internal layout of the property shows three bedrooms with a kitchen area on the ground floor and a further five bedrooms together with bathroom facilities on the first floor. I understand that although the occupiers of the property have their own individual bedrooms, they all share the kitchen and bathroom facilities. Consequently, the property affords its occupiers with the facilities required for day-to-day private existence, this being the distinctive characteristic of a dwellinghouse according to established case law. Moreover, as the layout does not show any part of the property being either physically or functionally separate, such as in the case of one or more self-contained flats, it is a single planning unit. Accordingly, on the basis of the available evidence, on the balance of probabilities and as a matter of fact and degree, I find that the property is a dwellinghouse for the purposes of Schedule 2, Part 1 of the GPDO.”].
• If an applicant does not provide information as to whether a proposed development would comply with the conditions of a Class, then an LDC should be refused on this basis. (*)
• For example, if the applicant does not specify whether the new upper-floor side windows would be obscure-glazed and non-opening, then an LDC should be refused on this basis. (*)

May 2018 - Code a00937 (appeal dismissed):

• An application under section 192 (proposed) should be 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). (*)
• Where a proposed extension (under Class A) would be attached to an existing extension, then the phrase “[the] total enlargement” 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] total enlargement”].
  [Note: Relates to Part 1 Class A paragraph A.1(ja) (with respect to A.1(j)) of the GPDO 2015].

May 2018 - Code a00936 (appeal allowed):

• 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 Class B (i.e. rather than Class A). (*)
  [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 flat roof, 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 flat roof of the original rear projection is permitted development. [Note: The roof extension, for all of its (rearmost) width, extends across the original rear eaves]. (*)
  [Conclusion: The works comply with Class B].
• The phrase “the highest part of the ... roof” relates to the property as a whole (i.e. not only to the part of the property that’s being altered or enlarged). (*)
• For example, where a property has a secondary roof that’s lower than the main roof, then an extension on top of this secondary roof can be higher than the highest part of this secondary roof (i.e. so long as the extension is not higher than the highest part of the main roof). (*)
  [Note: The extension is higher than the flat roof of the original two-storey rear projection].

May 2018 - Code a00935 (appeal dismissed):

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

May 2018 - Code a00934 (appeal allowed):

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

May 2018 - Code a00933 (split decision):

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

May 2018 - Code a00932 (appeal dismissed):

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

May 2018 - Code a00931 (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.