“Part 1 of the GPDO – GENERAL Appeal Decisions” – 5 additional appeal decisions (total = 1,156) …

The Part 1 of the GPDO - GENERAL Appeal Decisions document has been updated to include 5 additional appeal decisions relating to householder permitted development legislation, for which the conclusions are as follows:

April 2019 - Code a01050 (appeal dismissed):

  • 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”.
  • The determination of “the principal elevation of the original dwellinghouse” should be based on the property as it exists (immediately) prior-to-works. (*)
    [Quote: “However implementation of the 2017 permission has changed matters considerably. The door in the southern elevation has been turned into a window and a front door and a substantial porch has been added to the east elevation. These features give to an already imposing frontage, a face that is clearly recognisable as the main entrance. Despite the added prominence given to the south elevation by the other alterations built under the 2017 permission, overall the changes have resulted in the east elevation now being the principal elevation of the dwelling. Interestingly, the appellant said in her statement in terms that part of the changes envisaged “is to make the east elevation the principal elevation”. That is indeed what has happened. [...] The proposed new outbuilding would be forward of the principal elevation of the dwellinghouse and would therefore fall within exception E.1 (c) of Part 1, Class E of Schedule 2 to the Order. Accordingly, the appeal must fail.”].
  • For an application under section 192 (proposed), although section 192(2) of the TCPA 1990 requires the Council to assess whether the works would be lawful if begun at the time of the application, sections 195(2) and 195(3) of the TCPA 1990 allow the Inspector to assess whether the works would be lawful at the date the appeal is determined. (*)
    [Quote: “This raises the issue of how to deal with a change in circumstances that would bring the proposed development outside the terms of the Order and would render it unlawful if applied for today. [...] Section 195 of the Act refers only to a refusal being ‘well-founded’ or ‘not well-founded’. This relates to the decision itself and not to the reasons for it. Moreover the wording uses the present tense: “is” or “is not” well-founded, which suggests that on appeal an assessment might consider any relevant changes in circumstances which might affect the decision to be made. [...] [Section 192(2)] pinpoints the date at which lawfulness must be considered by the local planning authority but it does not, as far as I can see govern the application of s195(2) so as to prevent a decision being made based on the best facts and evidence available at the time the decision is taken. [...] In this case there has occurred a material change in the principal elevation of the dwelling not only before the proposed use has begun but before the appeal has been determined. A certificate issued in this appeal based on the position at the date of the application would be inconclusive of the lawfulness of that proposal now. [...] With no good reason to do so, issuing a certificate would fundamentally undermine the effectiveness of the appeal procedure. Accordingly, and as the Secretary of State's powers transferred to me are not limited to finding that the Council was wrong in law and thus allowing an appeal, I will confirm the decision for reasons that are different from those given by the Council.”].

April 2019 - Code a01049 (appeal dismissed):

  • Where a property has a secondary roof that’s significantly 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 three-storey house (albeit that this projection has previously been rebuilt at first floor level)].
  • The term “eaves” does apply to the lower end of a pitched roof.
  • Furthermore, the above conclusion still applies even if the lower end of the pitched roof ends with a raised parapet wall.
    [Note: Relates to B.2(b) of the GPDO 2015].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector did not accept the applicant’s argument that a 20cm set back isn’t “practicable”. (*)
    [Note: The roof extension is not set back from the side eaves on one side of the original rear projection (albeit that the latter has a dual-pitched roof, and the roof extension is set back from the side eaves on the other side)].

March 2019 - Code a01048 (appeal allowed):

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

March 2019 - Code a01047 (appeal dismissed):

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

March 2019 - Code a01046 (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.