“Part 1 of the GPDO – GENERAL Appeal Decisions” – 2 additional appeal decisions (total = 1,468) …

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:

November 2021 - Code a01362 (appeal allowed):

  • This appeal decision states, or implies, that the term “incidental” is not the same as the term “ancillary”. (*)
    [Quote: “The description of the development as set out above [note: this is referring to a “proposed rear ancillary building”] is taken from the LDC application form. Clearly, an ‘ancillary’ building would require planning permission. However, it is now evident that the previous agent had been unaware that ‘there was a difference between the wording ‘ancillary’ and ‘incidental’. The current agent confirms that the application is for a building which would be ‘incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse’ at [the application site], as opposed to it being ‘ancillary’. This is how the appellant’s case has been set out in the appeal and I have dealt with the appeal on that basis. The LPA is aware of this from the Appellant’s appeal statement. In dealing with the appeal on the basis that the proposed building is contended to be ‘incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse’, as opposed to it being ‘ancillary’, again I am satisfied that no injustice will be caused. As a consequence, I have, therefore, changed the title of what has been granted a LDC to ‘a proposed rear incidental outbuilding’.”].
  • 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.
    [Quote: “In my view, the activities and uses proposed can all be generally regarded as being genuinely subordinate and reasonable activities connected with the residential use of this property. None can be described as being primary living accommodation. I agree with the view put forward on behalf of the appellant that the small study or garden office can be considered to be reasonably ‘incidental’, as opposed to it being an addition to the primary living spaces of the kitchen, bathroom(s), bedrooms and living spaces of the main house. None of these proposed spaces could be described as being absolutely vital to enable [the application site] to function as a dwellinghouse.”].

November 2021 - Code a01361 (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.