Part 1 Class AA of the GPDO – Update relating to the assessment of the “external appearance of the dwellinghouse” …

[UPDATE: For information about the subsequent "Cab Housing Limited" High Court judgment dated 03/02/2022, please view this post.]

The "Part 1 Class AA of the GPDO - Information about Appeal Decisions" page on the Planning Jungle website includes an "informal list" of prior approval appeal decisions relating to Part 1 Class AA of the GPDO (i.e. "enlargement of a dwellinghouse by construction of additional storeys"). The appeal decisions within this "informal list" are not summarised (only listed).

However, during the process of adding appeal decisions to this "informal list", it has become apparent that there is a significant contradiction in terms of how the issue of the "external appearance of the dwellinghouse" has been assessed within different appeal decisions.

For reference, Part 1 Class AA paragraph AA.2(3)(a) requires the developer to submit an application for prior approval with respect to a number of issues, including the following:

"(ii) the external appearance of the dwellinghouse, including the design and
architectural features of—
(aa) the principal elevation of the dwellinghouse, and
(bb) any side elevation of the dwellinghouse that fronts a highway;"

The following conclusions show how the above issue of the "external appearance of the dwellinghouse" has been assessed within different appeal decisions (note: to view the decision notices for any of these appeals, please view the "Part 1 Class AA of the GPDO - Information about Appeal Decisions" page). There is a significant contradiction between the following first and second conclusions versus the following third conclusion:

Conclusions:

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

Notes:

  • For Part 1 Class AA of the GPDO, the above first and second conclusions contain significantly more appeal decisions than the above third conclusion.
  • However, for Part 20 of the GPDO, it's the opposite way round - i.e. the equivalent of the above third conclusion contains significantly more appeal decisions than the equivalent of the above first and second conclusions. This appears to be a further significant contradiction (note: for more information about these conclusions relating to Part 20, please view this post).