“GPDO Part 1 (All Classes) – LDC Appeal Decisions” – 3 additional appeal decisions (total = 1,801) …

The "GPDO Part 1 (All Classes) - LDC 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:

June 2024 - Code a01695 (appeal dismissed):

  • For an application under section 192 (proposed), where the Council issues a split decision and the applicant submits an appeal (i.e. with respect to the works that were refused by the split decision), then it is not possible for the Inspector to refuse an LDC with respect to the works that were allowed by the split decision.
    [Quote: “The appeal is against a ‘refusal in part’ with the Council having certified much of the proposal as lawful. I saw on viewing the site that the outbuilding element is presently under construction. The question arising in the appeal is whether the Council’s certificate should be modified: section 195(2) of the Act. However, this question of modification arises only insofar as the Council have refused the application. An outcome less favourable to the appellant than the certificate granted by the Council cannot arise.”].
  • In an application for an LDC, the burden of proof is firmly on the applicant.
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where the submitted information contained inconsistencies (or similar), and the Inspector concluded that an LDC should be refused on this basis.
    [Note: The drawings are marked “APPROX DIMS INDICATED: DO NOT SCALE FROM PLAN”].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular space does count as volume (i.e. “cubic content”) for the purposes of B.1(d).
    [Note: The space is the crown roof (i.e. a roof with a flat area in the centre and pitches at the sides) of a proposed single storey rear extension (which would join onto the face of the proposed rear dormer)”].
    [Quote: “As to whether any ‘roof space’ results from the single storey extension, the appellant states that the extension is actually designed as a flat roof, with the sides being ‘purely decorative’ to give the appearance of a pitched roof. This suggests that what is being proposed is a partly vaulted ceiling to the single storey extension. Save for a very limited extract supplied as part of the appeal statement, no section drawings are provided. The application form describes a ‘pitched roof’. The relevant slopes are depicted and described on plans as being a slate roof. On the basis of the information given, what is proposed clearly includes ‘roof space’ and I have not had to seek any further views about whether a vaulted ceiling does or does not comprise ‘roof space’.”].
  • Where a proposed Class A extension would be attached to a proposed Class B extension, then for the purposes of B.1(d) the volume (i.e. “cubic content”) of both the Class B extension and the roof of the Class A extension should be taken into consideration (i.e. rather than the volume of only the Class B extension). (*)
    [Note: The roof of the proposed single storey rear extension would join onto the face of the proposed rear dormer].

June 2024 - Code a01694 (appeal dismissed):

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

June 2024 - Code a01693 (appeal allowed):

  • [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.