“Part 1 of the GPDO – GENERAL Appeal Decisions” – 3 additional appeal decisions (total = 1,566) …

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:

August 2022 - Code a01460 (appeal dismissed):

  • Only one elevation can constitute “the principal elevation”. (*)
  • This appeal decision provides an example of the types of factors that should be taken into consideration when determining which elevation is “the principal elevation”.
  • “The principal elevation” is not necessarily the elevation that contains the main entrance door.
  • Where an application under section 192 (proposed) is made for a roof extension that’s contrary to Class B and a roof alteration that complies with Class C, then this appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector concluded that an LDC should be refused with respect to both the roof extension and the roof alteration. [Note: In other words, the Inspector did not issue a split decision]. (*)
    [Note: The Inspector dismissed the appeal with respect to a “loft conversion with side dormer and side skylights”].
    [Quote: “The intended purpose of the works is to create a room in the loft. To achieve this, the dormer roof extension is required to facilitate access from the first floor of the property and to provide the desired space and head height to make the room usable. The roof lights proposed would serve the loft room. Although the Council consider the roof lights would be development which is permitted by Class C of the GPDO, as the intended purpose for the roof lights would not be functionally severable from the dormer roof extension and loft conversion, I am, on this occasion, unable to issue a split decision.”].
  • Where a Council (or Inspector) incorrectly concludes that works (on one property) would be permitted development and issues an LDC, and an applicant (for another similar property) submits an application for an LDC for similar works based on the same incorrect interpretation, then it is not the case that the existence of the previous LDC requires the Council (or Inspector) to issue another LDC.
    [Quote: “My attention has been drawn to a scheme at [a nearby property] by the appellant. This property is within the same borough and the Council granted a LDC for a loft conversion with rear dormer and two front roof lights. This development has now been carried out. Although the physical configuration of [the nearby property] is broadly the same as the appeal property, the plans confirm that the front elevation of [the nearby property] faces Ongar Close, with the side elevation fronting Rochford Avenue. Whereas the plans submitted in respect of this appeal state that the front elevation faces Tendering Way, and the side elevation fronts Donald Drive. This is the opposite of the scheme at [the nearby property]. As such, there would appear to be an inconsistency in the Council’s approach. However, as I have explained, I am not bound by its previous decision to issue a LDC for a similar development. Based on the evidence, I am satisfied that the proposal does not accord with the limitation set out in paragraph B.1(c).”].

August 2022 - Code a01459 (appeal dismissed):

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

August 2022 - Code a01458 (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.