“GPDO Part 1 (All Classes) – LDC Appeal Decisions” – 5 additional appeal decisions (total = 1,752) …

The "GPDO Part 1 (All Classes) - LDC Appeal Decisions" document has been updated to include 5 additional appeal decisions relating to householder permitted development legislation, for which the conclusions are as follows:

February 2024 - Code a01646 (appeal dismissed):

  • This appeal decision provides an example of where a condition (on a previous planning permission) removes permitted development rights under a previous version of the GPDO but doesn’t refer to subsequent versions of the GPDO, and the Inspector concluded that the condition does remove permitted development rights under the current version of the GPDO.
    [Quote: “I acknowledge that more modern conditions specify which permitted development rights are being removed, make reference to the relevant part of the Order, and include a clause along the lines of “or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification”. However, case law has confirmed that even if a condition does not contain such a clause, the condition has a continuing effect in respect of the new Order (in this case the GPDO). This is due to Section 17(2) of the Interpretation Act 1978. Case law has also established that the words used in conditions should be given their natural and ordinary meaning. Condition 7 of the original permission specifies that “planning permission” would be required for “any development of this land”. The meaning and intent of this condition is clearly to remove permitted development rights and require that any development to the dwellings secures express planning permission. This is explicit in the terms of the condition rather than being implied. Therefore, even though condition 7 of the original permission relates to the GDO, I conclude that it still applies. Hence, dwellings constructed under the original permission, including [the application site], do not benefit from permitted development rights for the enlargement improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse.”].

January 2024 - Code a01645 (appeal dismissed):

  • 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”.
  • Where a property has different elevations that front different highways, then “the principal elevation” is not necessarily the elevation that fronts the highway corresponding to the postal address of the property.
  • For a row of terraced properties, or a pair of semi-detached properties, it is not necessarily the case that “the principal elevation” of each property faces in the same direction.
    [Note: This appeal decision implies (rather than states) this conclusion].
    [Note: The application site is a semi-detached property].
  • A “juliette balcony” without a platform does not constitute a “verandah, balcony or raised platform”. [Note: In other words, such a structure is not prevented by the limitations about balconies (i.e. A.1(k), B.1(e), and E.1(h))].
  • The requirement for any upper-floor side “window” to be obscure-glazed and non-opening does apply to a glazed door.
    [Note: The side dormer would contain 2 x pairs of french doors (with side windows)].
    [Quote: “Nevertheless, the submitted plans annotate the [south] elevation facing Oaks Lane as the side elevation and show the facing wall of the proposed dormer to include two sets of patio style doors, with flanking, full height windows behind Juliet balconies. Although the Design and Access Statement indicates that any window facing the side would be obscure glazed and non-opening up to 1.7m, that is not reflected in the proposed floor plan which show both sets of patio doors to be fully openable. Moreover, there is nothing on those plans to indicate that the windows or patio doors would be obscure glazed. Indeed, the appellant’s case appears to argue why such measures are not necessary in this case. In that regard, I understand why the appellant argues that the windows would not affect the privacy of neighbours. However, the Technical Guidance for Class B is explicit in that it states that windows for a loft extension on a side elevation of a house must be obscure glazed to benefit from permitted development rights. The failure to comply with condition B.2(c) would constitute a breach of planning control against which the Council could take enforcement action. The operations would not therefore be lawful for the purposes of the 1990 Act.”].

January 2024 - Code a01644 (appeal dismissed):

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

January 2024 - Code a01643 (appeal allowed):

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

January 2024 - Code a01642 (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.