Hi all,
Please find below a link to the latest version of my "Part 1 - Appeal Decision Summaries" document (Version 12.0, updated 18/06/2010):
http://www.planningjungle.com/GPDO ... Appeal Decision Summaries - Version 12.0.doc
The idea of this document is to provide a summary of appeal decisions that are relevant to the amended Part 1 of the GPDO. The appeal decisions themselves, along with many of the plans, are available on the following website …
www.planningjungle.com
www.planningjungle.com/appeal_decisions.shtml
Since the last version of this document, 5 appeal decisions have been added, and below I've listed the main conclusions from these new appeals. Please note that some of these conclusions (as marked in green) contradict conclusions from other appeal decisions. For such cases, please refer to the "Contents" section of the document, which lists how many appeals there have been for and against each conclusion.
If you have any comments, criticisms, or suggestions for this document, please feel free to email me (see email address at end of document). Please note that I produce this document in my own time, and therefore some of the summaries are not as comprehensive as I would like. If you come across an appeal decision that I have missed, or if you believe that any of the summaries in this document contain a misinterpretation or a significant omission, please let me know.
Thanks,
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below is a list of conclusions from appeal decisions added since the previous version of this document:
· Where the walls of an outbuilding would not be within 2m of a boundary, but the eaves of the outbuilding would overhang to slightly within 2m of a boundary, then the 2.5m height restriction of E.1(d) would apply.
[Relevant to: A.1(g), E.1(d)].
· Where parts of a proposed outbuilding are within 2m of a boundary, the 2.5m height limit applies not just to those parts within 2m of the boundary, but to all parts of the proposed outbuilding.
[Relevant to: A.1(g), E.1(d)].
· Even if a detached structure would be separated from the main house by only a very small (i.e. token) amount, this would still be sufficient for the structure to fall under Class E (“the provision within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse of … any building …”) rather than Class A (“the enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse”).
[Relevant to: “Interaction between Class A and Class E”].
· The side wall of an original rear projection (i.e. the side wall facing the infill area) is “a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse” for the purposes of the GPDO.[Note: This would appear to contradict at least one other appeal decision – for further information see the entry in the “Contents” section on “A side elevation of the original dwellinghouse”].
[Relevant to: “A side elevation of the original dwellinghouse”, A.1(d), A.1(h), A.2(b), A.3(b), B.2(c), C.2, E.3, G.1(b)].
· For example, an extension to the side of an original rear projection within a conservation area is not permitted development.
[Note: This would appear to contradict at least one other appeal decision – for further information see the entry in the “Contents” section on “A side elevation of the original dwellinghouse”].
[Relevant to: “A side elevation of the original dwellinghouse”, A.1(d), A.1(h), A.2(b), A.3(b), B.2(c), C.2, E.3, G.1(b)].
· Furthermore, even the side wall of an original single storey rear projection (i.e. the side wall facing the infill area) is “a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse”.
[Relevant to: “A side elevation of the original dwellinghouse”, A.1(d), A.1(h), A.2(b), A.3(b), B.2(c), C.2, E.3, G.1(b)].
· Where a property has an original rear projection, then there will be more than one wall that constitutes “the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse” for the purposes of Class A, part A.1(e). This means that where the original rear elevation of a property is stepped, the 3m/4m rear projection limit will be similarly stepped.
[Note: This would appear to contradict at least one other appeal decision – for further information see the entry in the “Contents” section on “The rear wall of the original dwellinghouse”].
[Relevant to: “The rear wall of the original dwellinghouse”, A.1(e), A.1(f), A.2(c)].
· Where a property has an original rear projection, then even if this is only single storey, the rear wall of this projection is still a “rear wall of the original dwellinghouse” for the purposes of Class A, part A.1(e).
[Relevant to: “The rear wall of the original dwellinghouse”, A.1(e), A.1(f), A.2(c)].
· Where the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse has been previously altered, its original line should be used for the purposes of Class A, part A.1(e).
[Relevant to: “The rear wall of the original dwellinghouse”, A.1(e), A.1(f), A.2(c)].
· Where parts of a proposed outbuilding are within 2m of a boundary, the 2.5m height limit applies not just to those parts within 2m of the boundary, but to all parts of the proposed outbuilding.
[Relevant to: A.1(g), E.1(d)].
· Where there is a discrepancy on a drawing between annotated dimensions and those produced from scaling, the annotated dimensions have precedence.
[Relevant to: ”General”].
· It is not possible to comply with Class B, part B.2(b) if the original eaves have been removed.
[Relevant to: B.2(b)].
· In an application for a certificate of lawfulness, the burden of proof is firmly on the applicant.
[Relevant to: "General”].
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please find below a link to the latest version of my "Part 1 - Appeal Decision Summaries" document (Version 12.0, updated 18/06/2010):
http://www.planningjungle.com/GPDO ... Appeal Decision Summaries - Version 12.0.doc
The idea of this document is to provide a summary of appeal decisions that are relevant to the amended Part 1 of the GPDO. The appeal decisions themselves, along with many of the plans, are available on the following website …
www.planningjungle.com
www.planningjungle.com/appeal_decisions.shtml
Since the last version of this document, 5 appeal decisions have been added, and below I've listed the main conclusions from these new appeals. Please note that some of these conclusions (as marked in green) contradict conclusions from other appeal decisions. For such cases, please refer to the "Contents" section of the document, which lists how many appeals there have been for and against each conclusion.
If you have any comments, criticisms, or suggestions for this document, please feel free to email me (see email address at end of document). Please note that I produce this document in my own time, and therefore some of the summaries are not as comprehensive as I would like. If you come across an appeal decision that I have missed, or if you believe that any of the summaries in this document contain a misinterpretation or a significant omission, please let me know.
Thanks,
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below is a list of conclusions from appeal decisions added since the previous version of this document:
· Where the walls of an outbuilding would not be within 2m of a boundary, but the eaves of the outbuilding would overhang to slightly within 2m of a boundary, then the 2.5m height restriction of E.1(d) would apply.
[Relevant to: A.1(g), E.1(d)].
· Where parts of a proposed outbuilding are within 2m of a boundary, the 2.5m height limit applies not just to those parts within 2m of the boundary, but to all parts of the proposed outbuilding.
[Relevant to: A.1(g), E.1(d)].
· Even if a detached structure would be separated from the main house by only a very small (i.e. token) amount, this would still be sufficient for the structure to fall under Class E (“the provision within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse of … any building …”) rather than Class A (“the enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse”).
[Relevant to: “Interaction between Class A and Class E”].
· The side wall of an original rear projection (i.e. the side wall facing the infill area) is “a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse” for the purposes of the GPDO.[Note: This would appear to contradict at least one other appeal decision – for further information see the entry in the “Contents” section on “A side elevation of the original dwellinghouse”].
[Relevant to: “A side elevation of the original dwellinghouse”, A.1(d), A.1(h), A.2(b), A.3(b), B.2(c), C.2, E.3, G.1(b)].
· For example, an extension to the side of an original rear projection within a conservation area is not permitted development.
[Note: This would appear to contradict at least one other appeal decision – for further information see the entry in the “Contents” section on “A side elevation of the original dwellinghouse”].
[Relevant to: “A side elevation of the original dwellinghouse”, A.1(d), A.1(h), A.2(b), A.3(b), B.2(c), C.2, E.3, G.1(b)].
· Furthermore, even the side wall of an original single storey rear projection (i.e. the side wall facing the infill area) is “a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse”.
[Relevant to: “A side elevation of the original dwellinghouse”, A.1(d), A.1(h), A.2(b), A.3(b), B.2(c), C.2, E.3, G.1(b)].
· Where a property has an original rear projection, then there will be more than one wall that constitutes “the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse” for the purposes of Class A, part A.1(e). This means that where the original rear elevation of a property is stepped, the 3m/4m rear projection limit will be similarly stepped.
[Note: This would appear to contradict at least one other appeal decision – for further information see the entry in the “Contents” section on “The rear wall of the original dwellinghouse”].
[Relevant to: “The rear wall of the original dwellinghouse”, A.1(e), A.1(f), A.2(c)].
· Where a property has an original rear projection, then even if this is only single storey, the rear wall of this projection is still a “rear wall of the original dwellinghouse” for the purposes of Class A, part A.1(e).
[Relevant to: “The rear wall of the original dwellinghouse”, A.1(e), A.1(f), A.2(c)].
· Where the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse has been previously altered, its original line should be used for the purposes of Class A, part A.1(e).
[Relevant to: “The rear wall of the original dwellinghouse”, A.1(e), A.1(f), A.2(c)].
· Where parts of a proposed outbuilding are within 2m of a boundary, the 2.5m height limit applies not just to those parts within 2m of the boundary, but to all parts of the proposed outbuilding.
[Relevant to: A.1(g), E.1(d)].
· Where there is a discrepancy on a drawing between annotated dimensions and those produced from scaling, the annotated dimensions have precedence.
[Relevant to: ”General”].
· It is not possible to comply with Class B, part B.2(b) if the original eaves have been removed.
[Relevant to: B.2(b)].
· In an application for a certificate of lawfulness, the burden of proof is firmly on the applicant.
[Relevant to: "General”].
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
