“Part 1 of the GPDO – GENERAL Appeal Decisions” – 2 additional appeal decisions (total = 1,068) …

The Part 1 of the GPDO - GENERAL Appeal Decisions document has been updated to include 2 additional appeal decisions relating to householder permitted development legislation, for which the conclusions are as follows:

August 2018 - Code a00962 (appeal dismissed):

  • This appeal decision provides an example of where the submitted information contained inconsistencies (or similar), and the Inspector concluded that an LDC should be refused on this basis.
    [Note: The set back of the rear dormer from the eaves is annotated on the drawing as 200mm but scales as “clearly not 200mm”].
  • 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 (or more than half of the width) of the party wall. (*)
    [Quote: “Both inspectors agreed that where party walls are concerned, adjoining curtilages could, as McAlpine decided, overlap each other (in some situations one completely surrounds another). This was particularly relevant in a party wall situation where the result could be the collapse or partial collapse of both if the wall were removed. The party wall was such an integral part of the two dwellings there was no reason why their curtilages could not overlap because such small areas were involved. The inspector in the 2010 decision agreed with that and I see no reasons that would make me come to a different conclusion. As with the 2010 inspector (at paragraph 6 of his decision) there is still the need for access rights to carry out such works which is covered by other legislation; any permission granted under the planning acts does not give anyone the right to carry out the approved development on land not in their ownership.”].

August 2018 - Code a00961 (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.