“GPDO Part 1 (All Classes) – LDC Appeal Decisions” – 4 additional appeal decisions (total = 1,739) …

The "GPDO Part 1 (All Classes) - LDC 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 2023 - Code a01633 (appeal allowed):

  • The determination of “the principal elevation of the original dwellinghouse” should be based on the property as it existed on 01/07/1948 or, if built after that date, as so built. (*)
    [Note: Relates to A.1(e) of the GPDO 2015].
    [Quote: “The crux of the matter is whether the extension would extend beyond a wall which forms the principal elevation of the original dwellinghouse. The GPDO defines “original” as meaning (a) in relation to a building, other than a building which is Crown land, existing on 1st July 1948, as existing on that date; (b) in relation to a building, other than a building which is Crown land, built on or after 1st July 1948, as so built; (c) in relation to a building which is Crown land on 7th June 2006, as existing on that date; and (d) in relation to a building built on or after 7th June 2006 which is Crown land on the date of its completion, as so built. The dwelling has undergone a number of extensions and alterations since 1st July 1948. The most notable of these was the conversion of the barn and construction of a link to the dwelling to form a large dwelling, for which planning permission was granted in 1990. [...] Prior to the 1990 planning permission being granted, the dwelling had two external doors, one in the southern elevation and one in the northern elevation. The photographic evidence submitted by the appellant shows that prior to the 1990 planning permission being implemented, the door in the northern elevation had no porch. Given the southern elevation had a porch; was accessed directly off [the highway], albeit vehicular access was likely to the rear; and, directly fronts [the highway], this would clearly have been read as the frontage of the dwelling. Consequently, based on the evidence before me, the principal elevation of the original dwellinghouse was the southern 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”.

December 2023 - Code a01632 (appeal dismissed):

  • In an application for an LDC, the burden of proof is firmly on the applicant.
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular structure is not “original”.
    [Note: Relates to A.1(d), A.1(i), and A.1(ja) (with respect to A.1(f) and A.1(h)) of the GPDO 2015].
    [Note: The structure is a single storey rear projection].
    [Quote: “The appeal relates to a detached property which has a single storey, flat roofed, ‘L’ shaped projection to the rear which contains part of one lounge, the kitchen and a second lounge. [...] In LDC cases, the onus is on the appellant to demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that the proposed development is lawful. The appellant states that the existing building has not been previously extended and that the footprint of the existing house is unchanged. The LPA states it has reviewed its own records and historical mapping information, neither of which it says conclusively proves whether the projection is original or not. However, it is evident that the projection is constructed in different materials to the original house. Moreover, [the neighbouring property to the west] does not contain such a projection. One would reasonably expect it do so, as it is the same design as the appeal property which is indicative of it being built as a pair at the same time. Furthermore, the photographs appended to the submitted plans appear to depict a supporting beam across the ceiling of the lounge at the point of the property where the rear wall would have been if the projection is not original. To my mind, this is indicative of a supporting external wall having previously been present. As a result, I find on the evidence before me, that on the balance of probabilities, the ‘L’ shaped projection to the rear of the property does not form part of the original dwellinghouse.”].
  • Where a property has a secondary roof that’s slightly lower than the main roof, then an extension on top of this secondary roof should be assessed against Class A (i.e. rather than Class B). (*)
    [Note: The secondary roof is the roof of a non-original single storey rear extension on a single storey house].
  • Where a proposed extension (under Class A) would be attached to an existing extension, then the phrase “[the] total enlargement” applies to the combined structure. [Note: In other words, the combined structure should be assessed against those limitations and conditions of Class A that apply to “[the] total enlargement”].
    [Note: Relates to A.1(ja) (with respect to A.1(f) and A.1(h)) of the GPDO 2015].

December 2023 - Code a01631 (appeal allowed):

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

December 2023 - Code a01630 (appeal dismissed):

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

Notes:

  • To view the conclusions, summaries, and decision notices for any of the above appeals, please view the "GPDO Part 1 (All Classes) - LDC Appeal Decisions" document. As a member of the Planning Jungle website, you can view the decision notices for all of the appeals on the website 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.