“Part 1 of the GPDO – GENERAL Appeal Decisions” – 3 additional appeal decisions (total = 1,417) …

The Part 1 of the GPDO - GENERAL Appeal Decisions document has been updated to include 3 additional appeal decisions relating to householder permitted development legislation, for which the conclusions are as follows:

June 2021 - Code a01311 (appeal dismissed):

  • Permitted development rights do not apply where the existing building or use is unlawful.
    [Quote: “As outlined above, the Council concedes that if reinstatement works were undertaken to the building as per the LDC application plans, and so as to make it conform with the 2015 Permission, the building would then be lawful. I concur with this approach. It follows then that, whilst presently the unauthorised building does not benefit from permitted development rights [footnote: Per Article 3(5) GDPO since the works involved in the construction of the building are unlawful in view of there being significant differences in the building as constructed as compared to that permitted by the 2015 Permission – primarily the construction of extensions to the side and rear elevations.], if the building were reinstated as per the 2015 Permission plans, it would then be lawful and so would benefit from PD rights.”].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a proposed extension (under Class A) should not be treated as two separate proposed extensions (under Class A) for the purposes of the phrase “[the] total enlargement”. [Note: In other words, the combined structure should be assessed against those limitations and conditions of Class A that apply to “[the] total enlargement”].
    [Note: Relates to A.1(ja) (with respect to A.1(j)) of the GPDO 2015].
    [Quote: “The floor plan submitted shows the eastern side extension as extending beyond the original rear wall of the dwelling and joining the proposed two storey rear extension. The consequence of this is that the total enlargement would, per A.1(ja) exceed a limit in A.1(j) – namely it would have a width greater than half of the original dwelling house. As such, if the rear extension and eastern extension were built together, as a single operation, as would appear to be the probable intention on the evidence before me, neither would be PD under Class A as they would not comply with A.1(ja). Whilst it might not have been the intention of the appellant for these extensions to be joined, in the interests of fairness, I must determine the application on the same basis as it was before the Council.”].
  • Where it’s proposed to erect two separate side extensions, one on each side of a detached house, then each of these side extensions can have a width up to half the width of the original dwellinghouse (i.e. this limit does not apply to the combined width of these side extensions).
    [Note: This appeal decision implies (rather than states) this conclusion].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular elevation does “front” a highway, even though the elevation and the highway are separated either by a significant distance or by land in different ownership or use. (*)
    [Note: Separated by a distance of approx 29m].
  • A new house that’s under construction does not benefit from Part 1 of the GPDO.
    [Quote: “PD rights are not available until a building is substantially completed – given the unfinished state of the appeal building including the absence of glazing and doors, taking a holistic approach, I find as a matter of fact and degree that it is not.”].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a new house was not substantially complete by a certain point in time.
    [Quote: “PD rights are not available until a building is substantially completed – given the unfinished state of the appeal building including the absence of glazing and doors, taking a holistic approach, I find as a matter of fact and degree that it is not.”].

June 2021 - Code a01310 (appeal allowed):

  • [Note: To view this information, please log onto the website with a current membership.]

June 2021 - Code a01309 (appeal allowed):

  • [Note: To view this information, please log onto the website with a current membership.]

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.