Hi all,
I've produced the latest version of my "GPDO - Part 1 - Appeal Decision Summaries" document (Version 15.0, updated 31/12/2010), which is available at the following address:
http://www.planningjungle.com/GPDO ... Appeal Decision Summaries - Version 15.0.doc
[Note: MS Word document, size 4MB]
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, 57 appeal decisions have been added, covering the period from 10/08/2010 to 31/12/2010 (all following the release of the "CLG - Permitted development for householders - Technical guidance" document in August 2010). All of these new appeal decisions have been summarised in the "Appeal Decision Summaries" section of the attached document. Please note that some of the conclusions (as marked in green) contradict conclusions from other appeal decisions. For such cases, please refer to the "Reference Section" of the attached document, which lists how many appeals there have been for and against each conclusion.
At the end of this post I have produced a summary of what I believe are some key points arising from these 57 appeal decisions.
If you have any comments, criticisms, or suggestions for this document, please feel free to let me know. 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
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some key points arising from these 57 appeal decisions:
- Where an interpretation is covered by the "CLG - Permitted development for householders - Technical guidance" (Aug 2010) document, in most appeal decisions the Inspector has agreed with the interpretation of this guidance document, and appears to have given this guidance document considerable weight. Indeed, in some appeal decisions the Inspector has accepted the interpretation of this guidance document without any further discussion.
- However, in a (relatively) small number of appeal decisions, the Inspector has accepted an interpretation that contradicts the interpretation of this guidance document. In my opinion, these contradictions appear to be a mixture of where the Inspector has disagreed with the interpretation of this guidance document, and where the Inspector has not fully understood the interpretation of this guidance document.
- At the end of my document titled "Comments on the new CLG guidance document" (08/08/2010), there is a list of "Significant issues that in my opinion are still unclear or questionable". The above contradictions appear to be mostly limited to being among the issues noted in this list.
The main contradictions within these 57 appeal decisions:
- Interaction between Class A and Class B:
The new appeal decisions "10 August 2010 – 45 Evesham Road" and "20 December 2010 – 9 Farnborough Avenue" contradict the new appeal decision "5 October 2010 – 3 Archdale Road" . The former two appeal decisions assessed a dormer on an original rear projection against only Class B (the appeals were allowed) whilst the latter appeal decision assessed a dormer (which was materially the same) against Class A and Class B (the appeal was dismissed). In my opinion, the Inspector in the latter appeal decision misunderstood the advice on page 7 of the CLG guidance document.
- "The enlarged part of the dwellinghouse":
The new appeal decisions "7 September 2010 – 13 Morningside", "22 October 2010 – Hatchgate Farm", and "23 November 2010 – 2 Pondwicks Close" contradict the guidance document. All three of these appeal decisions indicate that the phrase “the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse” only applies to the proposed extension, and does not includes any previous extension (i.e. non-original part of the application site) to which the proposed extension would be attached. In my opinion, the examples on pages 26 and 27 of the CLG guidance document indicate the opposite.
- Materials:
The new appeal decision "1 October 2010 – 1 Staunton Road" contradicts the guidance document. The appeal decision concludes that Class B, part B.2(a) would allow brickwork to be used for the face of a dormer on the basis that this would be of a similar appearance to the brickwork used in the external construction of the house, whereas page 34 of the guidance document states that the materials used for facing a dormer should appear to be of similar colour and design to the materials used in the main roof of the house.
- Whether a flat roof has "eaves":
The new appeal decision "29 November 2010 – 22 Cavendish Avenue" contradicts the new appeal decisions "30 November 2010 – 37 Chiswick Quay", "23 December 2010 – Mattesdon Farm House, Lycrome Road", and the guidance document. The former appeal decision concludes that the term "eaves" does not apply to the edge of a flat roof, whereas the latter two appeal decisions and the guidance document conclude that the term "eaves" does apply to the edge of a flat roof.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've produced the latest version of my "GPDO - Part 1 - Appeal Decision Summaries" document (Version 15.0, updated 31/12/2010), which is available at the following address:
http://www.planningjungle.com/GPDO ... Appeal Decision Summaries - Version 15.0.doc
[Note: MS Word document, size 4MB]
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, 57 appeal decisions have been added, covering the period from 10/08/2010 to 31/12/2010 (all following the release of the "CLG - Permitted development for householders - Technical guidance" document in August 2010). All of these new appeal decisions have been summarised in the "Appeal Decision Summaries" section of the attached document. Please note that some of the conclusions (as marked in green) contradict conclusions from other appeal decisions. For such cases, please refer to the "Reference Section" of the attached document, which lists how many appeals there have been for and against each conclusion.
At the end of this post I have produced a summary of what I believe are some key points arising from these 57 appeal decisions.
If you have any comments, criticisms, or suggestions for this document, please feel free to let me know. 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
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some key points arising from these 57 appeal decisions:
- Where an interpretation is covered by the "CLG - Permitted development for householders - Technical guidance" (Aug 2010) document, in most appeal decisions the Inspector has agreed with the interpretation of this guidance document, and appears to have given this guidance document considerable weight. Indeed, in some appeal decisions the Inspector has accepted the interpretation of this guidance document without any further discussion.
- However, in a (relatively) small number of appeal decisions, the Inspector has accepted an interpretation that contradicts the interpretation of this guidance document. In my opinion, these contradictions appear to be a mixture of where the Inspector has disagreed with the interpretation of this guidance document, and where the Inspector has not fully understood the interpretation of this guidance document.
- At the end of my document titled "Comments on the new CLG guidance document" (08/08/2010), there is a list of "Significant issues that in my opinion are still unclear or questionable". The above contradictions appear to be mostly limited to being among the issues noted in this list.
The main contradictions within these 57 appeal decisions:
- Interaction between Class A and Class B:
The new appeal decisions "10 August 2010 – 45 Evesham Road" and "20 December 2010 – 9 Farnborough Avenue" contradict the new appeal decision "5 October 2010 – 3 Archdale Road" . The former two appeal decisions assessed a dormer on an original rear projection against only Class B (the appeals were allowed) whilst the latter appeal decision assessed a dormer (which was materially the same) against Class A and Class B (the appeal was dismissed). In my opinion, the Inspector in the latter appeal decision misunderstood the advice on page 7 of the CLG guidance document.
- "The enlarged part of the dwellinghouse":
The new appeal decisions "7 September 2010 – 13 Morningside", "22 October 2010 – Hatchgate Farm", and "23 November 2010 – 2 Pondwicks Close" contradict the guidance document. All three of these appeal decisions indicate that the phrase “the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse” only applies to the proposed extension, and does not includes any previous extension (i.e. non-original part of the application site) to which the proposed extension would be attached. In my opinion, the examples on pages 26 and 27 of the CLG guidance document indicate the opposite.
- Materials:
The new appeal decision "1 October 2010 – 1 Staunton Road" contradicts the guidance document. The appeal decision concludes that Class B, part B.2(a) would allow brickwork to be used for the face of a dormer on the basis that this would be of a similar appearance to the brickwork used in the external construction of the house, whereas page 34 of the guidance document states that the materials used for facing a dormer should appear to be of similar colour and design to the materials used in the main roof of the house.
- Whether a flat roof has "eaves":
The new appeal decision "29 November 2010 – 22 Cavendish Avenue" contradicts the new appeal decisions "30 November 2010 – 37 Chiswick Quay", "23 December 2010 – Mattesdon Farm House, Lycrome Road", and the guidance document. The former appeal decision concludes that the term "eaves" does not apply to the edge of a flat roof, whereas the latter two appeal decisions and the guidance document conclude that the term "eaves" does apply to the edge of a flat roof.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
