“Part 1 of the GPDO – GENERAL Appeal Decisions” – 2 additional appeal decisions (total = 1,530) …

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:

May 2022 - Code a01424 (appeal dismissed):

  • This appeal decision provides an example of where an application under section 192 (proposed) was assessed on the basis of the hypothetical works that are shown on the submitted drawings (i.e. rather than the actual works that have been carried out on the site). (*)
  • For an application under section 192 (proposed), the (hypothetical) question is whether the works would be lawful if begun at the time of the application. (*)
  • Permitted development rights do not apply where the existing building or use is unlawful.
    [Quote: “Article 3 of the GPDO sets out that planning permission is granted for the forms of development at Schedule 2 of the GPDO. Paragraph 3(5) states that this permission does not apply if, in the case of permission granted in connection with an existing building, the building operations involved in the construction of that building are unlawful. Consequently, where there are unlawful elements to the existing building, the rights granted by Article 3 and Schedule 2 of the GPDO do not apply. In these circumstances the GPDO does not grant planning permission for further extensions. In this case, the Council state that the existing ground floor rear extension is unlawful. If that is the case, no further extensions, including the dormer proposed, would be permitted.”].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that the fact that works on one part of a building or site are unlawful does prevent works on another part of the building or site from being permitted development. (*)
    [Conclusion: The unlawful single storey rear extension would prevent the erection of a rear dormer].
    [Quote: “Article 3 of the GPDO sets out that planning permission is granted for the forms of development at Schedule 2 of the GPDO. Paragraph 3(5) states that this permission does not apply if, in the case of permission granted in connection with an existing building, the building operations involved in the construction of that building are unlawful. Consequently, where there are unlawful elements to the existing building, the rights granted by Article 3 and Schedule 2 of the GPDO do not apply. In these circumstances the GPDO does not grant planning permission for further extensions. In this case, the Council state that the existing ground floor rear extension is unlawful. If that is the case, no further extensions, including the dormer proposed, would be permitted.”].
  • This appeal decision states, or implies, that the successful completion of the prior approval process is not legally equivalent to confirmation that the proposed development would be lawful (i.e. confirmation that it would comply with all of the other limitations and conditions of Part 1 Class A). (*)
    [Quote: "The appellant indicates that the Council’s conclusion that prior approval was not required for the earlier extension means that they had confirmed planning permission was granted for it by the GPDO. Class A.4(7) provides that prior approval is required where any owner or occupier of adjoining premises objects and, in that event, the Council must consider any impact on amenity. Presumably, the Council did not receive any objections from neighbouring owners or occupiers. As a result, they notified the appellant that prior approval was not required. I note that the condition at Class A.4(3) states that the Council may refuse an application where the development did not comply with the restrictions set out in Class A, Part 1, Schedule 2 of the GPDO. However, whilst the Council would be bound to consider whether development falls within the requirements of that class of permitted development, confirmation that prior approval was not required does not confer planning permission for development outside that class. Furthermore, the appropriate mechanism for determining whether something was or would be permitted development is an application for an LDC. So, notwithstanding the Council’s confirmation that prior approval was not required, the ground floor extension did not meet the terms of Class A, Part 1, Schedule 2 of the GPDO so does not have planning permission. It is, therefore, unlawful."].

May 2022 - Code a01423 (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.