“Part 1 of the GPDO – GENERAL Appeal Decisions” – 3 additional appeal decisions (total = 1,608) …

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:

December 2022 - Code a01502 (appeal allowed):

  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular structure is “original”.
    [Note: Relates to B.1(d) and B.2(b) of the GPDO 2015].
    [Note: The structure is a (part-width) two-storey side and rear projection].
    [Quote: “In cases where a building predates 1st July 1948, the original building is defined by the GDPO as being as it existed on that day, which can therefore include any extensions that had already been made at that time. [...] The appellant has provided an extract from an Ordnance Survey map from 1938 which shows that there was built form of some type in the location of the two storey rear and side outrigger, but its plan form nature is not able to provide detail of the height of what was there. However, aerial photographs dating from 1926 and 1945 offer further information in that respect. Whilst the picture quality of these two photographs reflects the period during which they were taken, the photograph dating from 1926 is sufficiently clear to show that the rear part of the outrigger existed and was two storey in height at that time. The areas of shading on the photograph from 1945 suggest that the side outrigger was also of two storey height at that point, as its front roof plane is not in shadow. If it had been only single storey in height, it is likely that this roof plane would have been in shade from the rest of the two storey dwelling. The fact that the brickwork of the side elevation of the side outrigger is consistent in material and appearance for its full height gives additional weight to the proposition that the outrigger was built to two storeys in height when constructed. Other evidence provided by the appellant includes the fact that the brickwork of the side outrigger is seamlessly ‘keyed’ into the brickwork of the rear outrigger, although this is not conclusive on its own. However, it does lend further weight to the likelihood of the rear and side outriggers being contemporaneous with one another, being two storeys in height when built and being present in that form on 1st July 1948. [...] Taken together, the evidence provided demonstrates that on the balance of probability the two storey rear and side outrigger existed on 1st July 1948 and therefore forms part of the original dwelling.”].
  • For the purposes of the post-06/04/2014 version(s) of B.2(b), the 20cm set back should be measured in the direction parallel to the roof slope (i.e. along the roof slope).

November 2022 - Code a01501 (appeal dismissed):

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

November 2022 - Code a01500 (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.