“Part 1 of the GPDO – GENERAL Appeal Decisions” – 5 additional appeal decisions (total = 1,247) …

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:

March 2020 - Code a01141 (appeal dismissed):

  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a condition (on a previous planning permission), which removes permitted development rights under a previous version of the GPDO but doesn’t refer to subsequent versions of the GPDO, does remove permitted development rights under the current version of the GPDO.
    [Quote: “The terms of the condition are clear and emphatic in my view. The condition prevents any enlargement, improvement or other alteration of the property taking place without the Council’s prior written approval; and it declares that this is the case notwithstanding Article 3 of the 1977 to 1981 Orders, which would have granted permission for certain developments of this type. Applying the principles set out by the Court of Appeal in Dunnett Investments Limited v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and East Dorset District Council [2017] EWCA Civ 192, I consider that in the present case it is not essential, in order for the condition to be enforceable, for it to refer as well to Orders revoking and replacing the 1977 to 1981 Orders or, indeed, for it to refer to any Orders at all. For the above reasons, I have concluded that the loft conversion would not be lawful if begun at the time of the application for the certificate since it would be contrary to Condition 6. I am satisfied that the Council’s refusal of the application is well-founded and the appeal has therefore been dismissed.”].

March 2020 - Code a01140 (appeal dismissed):

  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that the following materials are not “of a similar appearance” to one-another:
    - grey artificial slates/tiles (that “are thin and ... have a smooth finish”) versus grey artificial slates/tiles (that “appear to be constructed from concrete, are significantly thicker, bulkier and heavier, and have a granular finish”).
    [Note: On the face and cheeks of a rear dormer versus on the roof of the main house (respectively)].

March 2020 - Code a01139 (appeal allowed):

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

March 2020 - Code a01138 (appeal dismissed):

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

March 2020 - Code a01137 (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.