“Part 1 of the GPDO – GENERAL Appeal Decisions” – 4 additional appeal decisions (total = 1,181) …

The Part 1 of the GPDO - GENERAL Appeal Decisions document has been updated to include 4 additional appeal decisions relating to householder permitted development legislation, for which the conclusions are as follows:

October 2019 - Code a01075 (2 x appeal allowed):

  • It is possible under Part 1 of the GPDO for two neighbouring properties to each concurrently erect a structure that adjoins the other structure across the boundary.
    [Note: The two structures are Class B roof extensions].
    [Quote: “The rear dormers are attached to one another, straddling the shared boundary between their host dwellings and they were constructed as a single building operation. The Council contended that for this reason, the dormers were not within the curtilage of a single dwelling and thus the operations could not be permitted by Part 1. At each host dwelling, the dormer extends up to the boundary of the curtilage and it shares a common boundary wall with the adjacent dwelling. Whilst each dormer is built up to the common boundary, when considered individually neither extends beyond the curtilage of its host dwelling. Therefore, each dormer is within the curtilage of its host dwelling and does not exceed the limitations or breach the conditions in Part 1, Class B. It follows that if each dormer had been constructed individually at different times, there is little to doubt that they would both have been considered as permitted development under Part 1, Class B. In my view, simply excluding the dormers from permitted development on the basis set out by the Council, where the limitations and conditions of Class B have otherwise been met in respect of the dormer on each dwelling, represents an unduly restrictive interpretation of Part 1. It would effectively prevent adjoining householders from undertaking even small-scale joint schemes straddling property boundaries as permitted development. There is nothing in the GPDO to suggest that adjacent dwellings cannot be enlarged or altered under Part 1 at the same time. My attention was not drawn to anything in the Government’s Technical Guidance which might have endorsed the Council’s interpretation.”].

October 2019 - Code a01074 (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: “According to relevant case law [Williams Le Roi v SSE & Salisbury DC [1993] JPL 1033], it is the date of commencement that determines the relevant GPDO a development is to be judged against. My attention was not drawn to any authority to support the Council’s proposition that by undertaking works to the outbuilding to make it wider in or around September 2015, it could no longer be judged against the GPDO 1995. In erecting the outbuilding, the appellant was undertaking a development permitted by the GPDO and where as in this instance no prior approval was required, there was no need for him to produce plans or details of the structure before commencement. Moreover, there is nothing in Schedule 2, Part 1 of the GPDO 1995 which required a development permitted by Class E to be carried out in the form that it commenced. In particular, there is nothing that prevented an addition to the foundations and floor slab of a Class E outbuilding being constructed as permitted development. Such an addition also has no effect on when development is deemed to have commenced for the purposes of s56(2) of the Act. Therefore, the appellant was within his rights to evolve the size and design of the outbuilding as his ideas changed during the protracted period of construction, including making enlargements, as long as the structure still satisfied the limitations in Schedule 2, Part 1, Class E of the GPDO 1995. [...] For the above reasons, in the absence of evidence which cast doubt on or made the appellant’s version of events less than probable, his evidence is persuasive and I afford it significant weight. Consequently, I find it more likely than not that the 2006 foundations commenced construction of the outbuilding, as they were comprised in the development. There is little evidence to indicate otherwise. As a result, there is no sound basis for concluding that the outbuilding should not be assessed against Schedule 2, Part 1, Class E of the GPDO 1995.”].
  • 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. (*)
    [Note: The works were begun pre-15/04/2015, substantially completed post-15/04/2015, and the Inspector assessed the works against the pre-15/04/2015 version of the GPDO].
    [Quote: “Moreover, given the above context, the date when the outbuilding was substantially completed is of limited relevance in determining whether an LDC should be issued.”].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that the works were begun by a certain point in time.
    [Conclusion: The outbuilding was begun before 15/04/2015].
    [Quote: “At s56(2), the Act provides that development shall be taken to have begun on the earliest date on which any material operation comprised in the development begins to be carried out. The definition of a ‘material operation’ at s56(4) includes at (b) the digging of a trench which is to contain the foundations, or part of the foundations, of a building. Consequently, the available evidence suggests that on the balance of probability, the foundations laid in April 2006 commenced construction of an outbuilding at the site. The central question is therefore, whether construction of the foundations commenced the outbuilding as it existed on the application date.”].

September 2019 - Code a01073 (appeal allowed):

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

September 2019 - Code a01072 (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.