“GPDO Part 1 (All Classes) – LDC Appeal Decisions” – 4 additional appeal decisions (total = 1,763) …

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:

February 2024 - Code a01657 (appeal dismissed):

  • This appeal decision provides an example of where a condition (on a previous planning permission) removes (some) permitted development rights by specifying particular works or Classes, and the Inspector concluded that the development is not contrary to this condition.
    [Note: The condition states that “Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988 (or any subsequent equivalent legislation) no development falling within Classes A to E, G or H of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the said Order shall be carried out without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority”].
    [Quote: “When the 1994 permission was granted the properties and their curtilage(s) were subject to a condition which removed permitted development (PD) rights for development falling within Classes A to E, G and H of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of The Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988 (GPDO). The garden area immediately around the house formed a typical and recognisable domestic ‘curtilage’ for [the dwellinghouse]. This is still particularly noticeable today from both near and distant viewpoints. [...] The 1994 permission is clear in indicating that the then domestic curtilage of [the dwellinghouse] was ‘tightly restricted’ and did not include the ‘extended garden’ area. The two paddocks on the site plan are shown as being outside of the tight residential garden areas of the new dwellings. For the reasons set out I agree, therefore, with Counsel’s Opinion that the ‘extended garden’ or former paddock,cannot be subject to Condition 3 of the 1994 permission.”].
  • The “curtilage” of a dwellinghouse can change over time (e.g. it can become larger, smaller, etc).
    [Quote: “Based upon the case law set out, I also accept that the ‘curtilage’ of a dwellinghouse can be capable of changing over time. The fact that the two current areas of ‘residential garden’ result in an area which is larger than that of the smaller original garden is irrelevant.”].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular piece of land is not within the “curtilage” of the property.
    [Note: The land is approx 14m-36m from the main house and separated from the main house by a fence and a gate].
  • Furthermore, the above was concluded even though it was accepted that the piece of land is within the applicant’s ownership / unit of occupation / planning unit / etc.
    [Quote: “I can understand the appellant and others being confused or perplexed by a situation where land can be considered lawful for residential purposes and yet found not to be within the ‘curtilage of a dwelling house’. But, as indicated above, the word ‘curtilage’ has not been defined and a residential/garden use of land does not necessarily equate to it falling within the ‘curtilage of a dwelling house’. In this case I have considered the appeal on the established case law basis that, whether or not the land falls within the ‘curtilage of a dwelling house’ is a matter of fact and degree in each particular case.”].

February 2024 - Code a01656 (appeal dismissed):

  • This appeal decision provides an example of where a property has an existing extension, and the Inspector concluded that the phrase “the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse” does apply to the subsequent alteration of this existing extension. [Note: In other words, the alteration of this existing extension should be assessed against those limitations and conditions of Class A that apply to “the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse”].
    [Note: The works would alter an existing single storey rear extension (“Sun Room”) by replacing its roof with a new roof (that would be “higher”)].
    [Quote: “The proposal would replace an existing sunroom to the rear of the dwellinghouse. The sunroom sits directly in between two other extensions to the dwelling, effectively filling in a gap between them. Only limited details of what is proposed have been provided. However, from what information is available, the works would include the laying of a concrete subfloor and the bringing of the roof together with the two adjacent previous extensions. The latter requirement would result in a situation where a new roof would be constructed and the intention is that this new roof would be higher than that which exists at the present time. That being the case and in the absence of anything to demonstrate otherwise, the works would extend beyond being simply the repair or maintenance of the existing sunroom and would instead represent new development for which planning permission is required.”].
  • 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(j)) of the GPDO 2015].

February 2024 - Code a01655 (appeal dismissed):

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

February 2024 - Code a01654 (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.