“Part 1 of the GPDO – GENERAL Appeal Decisions” – 2 additional appeal decisions (total = 1,414) …

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:

June 2021 - Code a01308 (appeal dismissed):

  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular piece of land is not within the “curtilage” of the property.
    [Note: The land is approx 25m-39m from the main house].
  • Furthermore, the above was concluded even though it was accepted that the piece of land is within the applicant’s ownership / unit of occupation / planning unit / etc.
    [Quote: “Caselaw has confirmed that the curtilage land need not necessarily be small, but that does not mean the relative size between the building and its claimed curtilage is not a relevant consideration. The appellant is claiming the whole of the wider land as curtilage, as identified by the red line on the site plan and the evidence submitted. As such, the claimed curtilage would be extensive when compared with the dwelling and its immediate garden area. It may have been used as an extended garden for many years, nonetheless, as noted in Burford, curtilage defines an area of land in relation to a building and not a use of land. Lowe refers to curtilage as being fairly described as part of the enclosure to the house to which it refers. The relationship of the land to the dwellinghouse is primarily associated with ownership as opposed to being part of one enclosure. Ownership is a relevant consideration but is not determinative. The size, location and relationship of the wider land to the neighbouring houses fronting [the highway] is such that any of these could identify and/or purchase part of it and claim curtilage. The 1950 conveyance plan provided by the appellant does not assist as it is not clear whether the land is associated with [the application site] or one of the neighbouring houses to the south. Overall, the evidence submitted does not support a finding that the land is intimately associated with the dwelling [the application site] and that it forms part and parcel of the building. The size, physical layout, function and relationship of the land to [the application site] is such that I do not consider it to be within its curtilage.”].

June 2021 - Code a01307 (appeal allowed):

  • [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.