The Part 1 of the GPDO - GENERAL Appeal Decisions document has been updated to include 4 additional appeal decisions relating to householder permitted development legislation, for which the conclusions are as follows:

March 2022 - Code a01411 (appeal dismissed):

• This appeal decision provides an example of where a condition (on a previous planning permission) removes (some) permitted development rights by specifying particular works or Classes, and the Inspector concluded that the development is contrary to this condition.
  [Note: The condition requires that the garage “shall be used solely for the accommodation of private motor vehicles and for purposes incidental to the dwellings, and shall not be converted to living accommodation” (and refers to the GPDO 1995) but doesn’t refer to any particular Classes].
  [Quote: “Turning to the operational development, the infilling of the garage with a new wall and window would be building operations, thereby falling within the definition of “development” within s55 of the Act. Such an alteration would be classed as an improvement or alteration to a dwellinghouse and would, unless otherwise restricted, be permitted development within Class A of the Order. Article 3(4) of the Order disapplies the planning permission granted by Article 3(1) of the Order where any development would be contrary to any condition imposed by any planning permission. In this regard, the Council’s undisputed evidence is that the property is subject to condition 20 (C20) of planning permission 10/00201/FUL, which states: “Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order amending, revoking and re-enacting this Order) the garages hereby permitted shall be used solely for the accommodation of private motor vehicles and for purposes incidental to the dwellings, and shall not be converted to living accommodation without the prior approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority”. (My emphasis in bold). [Condition] C20 therefore restricts use of the garage to parking of motor vehicles and incidental uses, and expressly prohibits conversion to living accommodation. The proposed operations and use would therefore be in breach of [condition] C20. As such, the proposed operational development and use as a kitchen would not be permitted development by virtue of Article 3(4) of the Order. Consequently, in the absence of a grant of express planning permission from the Council the proposed development would not be lawful.”].

March 2022 - Code a01410 (appeal dismissed):

• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that the following materials are not “of a similar appearance” to one-another:
  - 2 x air-conditioning units (that are “covered with a material which resembles brick work”, albeit that “the fans are visible”) versus brown bricks.
  [Note: On the walls of the main house versus on the walls of the main house (respectively)].

March 2022 - Code a01409 (appeal dismissed):

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

March 2022 - Code a01408 (appeal dismissed):

• [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.