“GPDO Part 1 (All Classes) – LDC Appeal Decisions” – 4 additional appeal decisions (total = 1,775) …

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:

April 2024 - Code a01669 (appeal allowed):

  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that the following materials are “of a similar appearance” to one-another:
    - white smooth render (stucco) with rustication channels versus white smooth render (stucco) without rustication channels.
    [Note: On the proposed front wall of the main house versus on the existing front wall of the main house (respectively)].
    [Note: The Inspector states that the creation of rustication channels (i.e. the cutting of V-shaped groove bands into the existing render) would involve “No materials, other than matching paint”].

April 2024 - Code a01668 (appeal dismissed):

  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that the removal of (the whole of) an existing outbuilding (i.e. the demolition of an existing outbuilding) does not fall within the scope of Class E. (*)
    [Quote: “Section 55(1) and (1A) of the Act provide that building operations include demolition of buildings. The Town and Country Planning (Demolition – Description of Buildings) Direction 2021 (the 2021 Direction) provides that the demolition of any building of which the cubic content, measured externally, does not exceed 50m3 shall not be taken to involve the demolition of land for the purposes of the Act. However, the appellant has identified the volume of the summer house to be just over 106m3 and so it is not exempted from development under section 55(2)(g) of the Act and the 2021 Direction. Part 11, Class B, of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)(England) Order 2015 (as amended)(the GPDO) permits any building operation consisting of the demolition of a building, subject to conditions and limitations. B.2(b)(i) states that the developer must, before beginning the development, apply to the local planning authority for a determination as to whether the prior approval of the authority will be required as to the method of demolition and any proposed restoration of the site. However, I have no substantive evidence to show the appellant has complied with the conditions set out under B.2. Consequently, the demolition of the summer house is not permitted by the GPDO and, since it is development for the purposes of the Act, planning permission would be required. It would therefore not have been lawful if instituted or begun on the date of the LDC application.”].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that particular works should be assessed against Class E (i.e. rather than Class A).
    [Note: The works include the enlargement and alteration of an existing outbuilding, which is separated from the main house by a relatively large gap (approx 30m)].
    [Quote: “The ‘rebuilding of volume on side of garage’ would involve extending the garage building to the south and would constitute operational development for the purposes of the Act. Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the GPDO permits development within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse. Class A permits the enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse. However, the garage does not constitute a dwellinghouse, rather it is an outbuilding within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse. Class E permits the provision within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse of any building or enclosure…required for a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse as such, or the maintenance, improvement or other alteration of such a building or enclosure.”].
  • The requirement for a Class E outbuilding to be used for an “incidental” purpose does not allow the use of an outbuilding for primary living accommodation, such as a bedroom, bathroom, or kitchen.
    [Quote: “The Permitted development rights for householders: Technical Guidance (2019) advises that a purpose incidental to a house would not cover normal residential uses, such as separate self-contained accommodation or the use of an outbuilding for primary living accommodation such as a bedroom, bathroom or kitchen. While I have no substantive evidence to show the building would not be used as a separate dwelling, even if it was to be used as part and parcel of the main dwelling (and therefore no material change of use would occur), given the provision of primary living accommodation, it would not be for a purpose incidental to the dwellinghouse and so would not be permitted by Class E.”].

March 2024 - Code a01667 (appeal dismissed):

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

March 2024 - Code a01666 (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.