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:

December 2022 - Code a01508 (appeal allowed):

• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular roof extension does constitute a “hip-to-gable enlargement” for the purposes of B.2(b). (*)
  [Note: This appeal decision implies (rather than states) this conclusion].
  [Note: The resulting roof is a gable end, except that it has an area of flat roof on top].

December 2022 - Code a01507 (appeal dismissed):

• 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. (*)
• A property that’s in the process of being converted to a house from a different use (i.e. something other than a “dwellinghouse”) does not benefit from Part 1 of the GPDO before the change of use has occurred.
  [Note: This appeal decision implies (rather than states) this conclusion].
  [Note: Stables converted into 2 x holiday-let units].
  [Quote: “Based on the appellant’s submissions, the appeal building was in use, or last used, as ‘former stables’ on the date the application was made. I am aware that an extant planning permission [The Council’s ref: DC/18/1827] was in place for the material change of use of the former stables to 2 holiday-let units at the time the application was made. Concurrent with the application for an LDC, the appellant submitted an application to discharge outstanding conditions attached to that planning permission which required the approval of details prior to the first use of any part of the building as holiday-let units. No evidence has been provided which demonstrates that any authorised material change of use of the former stables to dwellinghouses had taken place at the time of the application. Classes A to H, Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the GPDO relate to development within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse. The appeal building did not constitute a dwellinghouse at the time of the application, and as such express planning permission would have been required to carry out any of the operations set out in those Classes.”].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a change of use to a house had not occurred by a certain point in time.
  [Note: Stables converted into 2 x holiday-let units].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when assessing whether works would be permitted development, concluded that an extant planning permission (i.e. a previous PP that has not been implemented) should not be taken into consideration.
  [Note: The extant PP would convert the property from stables into 2 x holiday-let units. The Inspector concludes that (before this extant PP has been implemented) the property does not constitute a “dwellinghouse” and therefore does not benefit from Part 1 of the GPDO].
• This appeal decision states, or implies, that it is not possible for an application under section 192 (proposed) to ask the (hypothetical) question of whether it would be lawful to first substantially complete one set of works granted planning permission by the Council, and then (subsequently) start and complete another set of works under permitted development rights.
  [Note: At the time when the application for an LDC under section 192 (proposed) was submitted, the PP works had been granted PP, but had not been begun].
  [Quote: “I note that the appellant refers to the LDC application as seeking to confirm whether such development could be carried out at a later date without the need for express planning permission, if other development were to be carried out first. However, as the building was a former stables and not in a lawful use as dwellinghouses at the time the LDC application was submitted, the provisions of section 192 of the Act do not provide for an LDC to be issued for the proposed development. The evidence indicates that the appeal building was not even capable of being lawfully used as dwellinghouses without the approval of further details on the date the LDC application was made. It has not therefore been demonstrated, on the balance of probabilities, that the proposed development would have been lawful on the date the application was made.”].

December 2022 - Code a01506 (appeal dismissed):

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

December 2022 - Code a01505 (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.