“Part 1 of the GPDO – GENERAL Appeal Decisions” – 2 additional appeal decisions (total = 1,400) …

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:

May 2021 - Code a01294 (appeal dismissed):

  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a structure that’s separated from the main house by a relatively large gap, except for being linked by a particular element, should be assessed against Class E (i.e. rather than Class A).
    [Note: The single storey garage is separated from the main house by a relatively large gap (approx 2.0m at the front), except for being linked by “a single plastic roof”].
    [Quote: “Furthermore, the Council considers that the proposed works constitute an enlargement to the dwellinghouse because the garage and dwellinghouse are linked by a single plastic roof. As such, the proposal should be assessed against Part 1, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (the GPDO) and that it would breach the limitations in Class A.1(e). At my site visit I saw that the garage was a building independent of the house with no linking structure. Whether or not the buildings had been linked at the time of the application, and with no further details to make me think otherwise, I consider that the form and material of the linking roof were likely to provide little more than shelter from inclement weather when passing between the house and the garage, rather than a structural element. Accordingly, the garage building does not fall to be assessed against PD rights provided within Part 1, Class A of the GDPO.”].
  • The requirement for a Class E outbuilding to be used for an “incidental” purpose does not allow the use of an outbuilding for primary living accommodation, such as a bedroom, bathroom, or kitchen.
  • Where a property has an existing outbuilding (that’s used for an “incidental” purpose), then it is not possible (as a single operation) to alter (or enlarge) the outbuilding (e.g. under Class E) and to change its use to a non-“incidental” purpose (e.g. as works not requiring PP).
    [Quote: “The GPDO Part 1, Class E confers parallel rights of maintenance, improvement and other alteration of buildings and enclosures in the curtilage of a dwellinghouse, where the building is used for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of that dwelling. The Government’s Technical Guidance advises that an incidental purpose would not cover normal residential uses, such as the use as a bedroom, bathroom, or kitchen. As the garage would contain primary living accommodation, it would not normally be considered to be in incidental use. Accordingly, the garage building would not fall to be assessed against PD rights provided within Part 1, Class E of the GPDO.”].

May 2021 - Code a01293 (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.