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:

March 2023 - Code a01535 (appeal dismissed):

• This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector concluded that the submitted information was not sufficient to constitute an application for prior approval in accordance with the requirements of Part 1 paragraph A.4(2).
  [Note: The applicant submitted “a LDC application form” on 11/03/2017, a “site/location plan” and an “existing elevation” on 07/04/2017, and (according to the applicant) a “proposed elevation” on 18/04/2017].
  [Quote: “The appellant originally submitted an application to the Council on 11 March 2017 which was submitted on a LDC application form but was effectively seeking prior approval in respect of the appeal extension detailed above. A letter was sent from the Council to the appellant on 27 March 2017 indicating the application to be invalid, requesting additional plans and advising that the application would be shredded, and fee returned if the additional documents were not provided by 24 April 2017. Per the appellant’s new evidence, the appellant emailed the Council on 7 April 2017 attaching a copy of the site/location plan and existing elevation plan and advising that the additional plans outstanding would be sent by her contractor to the Council. The Council case officer responded on 13 April 2017 indicating that these documents had been sent to the registration team. A further email was then sent from the appellant to the Council on 18 April 2017 stating that it was attaching the outstanding plans, along with those already submitted on 7 April 2017. Finally, an email dated 30 August 2017 was sent from the appellant to the Council asking whether the 18 April 2017 emailed documents had been received and essentially seeking to complete the process to ‘ensure that all paperwork is in order’ for any future sale of the property. [...] On the evidence before me, whilst it is clear that the appellant sent an email to the Council on 18 April 2017 stating that it was attaching the outstanding plans, it is not clear from the email correspondence provided whether or not the plans were actually attached to that email. This is because the chain of emails submitted in evidence shows the plans as being attached to an email at the top of the chain, rather than to the 18 April email; I do not have a screenshot of the 18 April email as it was sent to enable me to determine the position. In view of this and the Council’s firm submission that plans were not received, the appellant has not made her case on this point on the balance of probability. As such, the 42-day period did not start to run from this date.”].
• It is not possible to issue an LDC under section 191 (existing) for a larger rear extension if the developer had not successfully completed the prior approval process before the extension was begun.
• For an application under section 191 (existing), the question is whether the works were lawful at the time of the application. (*)
  [Quote: “As to whether the development could have been lawful by reason of the time for taking enforcement action having expired, as outlined above, s171B stipulates a four-year enforcement period running from the date of substantial completion of the works. It appears from the available evidence that works were likely substantially completed in June 2017 since this is the date stated in the description of development in the LDC application. Whilst more than four years has therefore passed from substantial completion of the works as at the date of this appeal, I am required to assess whether the appeal development was lawful as at the time of the LDC application [s191(4) 1990 Act]. The LDC application was dated 5 April 2021 and thus, as at the date of the LDC application, four years had not passed since substantial completion such as to render the appeal development immune from enforcement action. Consequently, the appeal development was not lawful at the date of the LDC application.”].
• For an application under section 191 (existing), if the works had not become lawful through the passage of time (i.e. the 4 or 10 year rule) by the time of the application, but the works have become lawful through the passage of time by the date the application is determined, then the works should be assessed on the basis that the works have not become lawful through the passage of time. (*)

March 2023 - Code a01534 (appeal dismissed):

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

March 2023 - Code a01533 (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.