Source: https://planningjungle.com/2016/07/17/part-1-of-the-gpdo-general-appeal-decisions-8-additional-appeal-decisions-total-816/
Timestamp: 2018-12-14 02:01:36
Document Index: 111078343

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 1', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 3', 'art 1']

“Part 1 of the GPDO – GENERAL Appeal Decisions” – 8 additional appeal decisions (total = 816) … | The Planning Jungle website
“Part 1 of the GPDO – GENERAL Appeal Decisions” – 8 additional appeal decisions (total = 816) …
July 2016 - Code a00710 (appeal allowed):
[Quote: “The correct sequence is: i) Is it development? Yes. ii) Why? Because it involves engineering and building operations. iii) Is it permitted development? Yes. iv) Why? Because, regardless of whether it is considered to be a single operation or a two-stage process, the engineering and building operations are necessary in order to provide the proposed basement. There is no separate engineering operation that would require express planning permission because it is essential to extract the subsoil from beneath the footprint of the house in order to facilitate the void within which the basement can be erected. In reaching this view I acknowledge that the basement at issue in Mackeson Road was smaller than that now proposed. Paragraph 7 of that decision records its dimensions to be 4.2 m x 5.3 m and if one assumes a height of 2 m then a cubic content of just over 40 m3 can be deduced. In closing the Council’s unchallenged claim was that this scheme would be approximately 11 m x 10 m and 3 m high, namely over 300 m3 or in excess of 7 times the size. However if the engineering operation is no more than is necessary to facilitate the implementation of the building operation then it is part and parcel of the deemed planning permission that is granted by Class A of Part 1.”].
[Note: Approx 300m3 would be excavated during creation of basement].
June 2016 - Code a00709 (appeal dismissed):
Where it’s proposed to erect two separate side extensions, one on each side of a detached house, then the combined width of these side extensions must not be greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse (i.e. this limit would not apply to each of these side extensions separately). (*)
Where a proposed extension would be separated from another proposed extension by a relatively large gap, then the phrase “the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse” 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 enlarged part of the dwellinghouse]. (*)
[Note: The two side extensions and the rear extension would be separated by the corners of the main house].
June 2016 - Code a00708 (appeal dismissed):
This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular structure does have “more than one storey” / “more than a single storey”.
[Note: Outbuilding contains two rooms at ground floor level, which are not directly above the lower ground floor rooms, and two areas at ground floor level marked as “void”, which are directly above the lower ground floor rooms].
June 2016 - Code a00707 (appeal dismissed):
June 2016 - Code a00706 (appeal dismissed):
June 2016 - Code a00705 (appeal allowed):
June 2016 - Code a00704 (appeal allowed):
June 2016 - Code a00703 (appeal dismissed):
This entry was posted in Part 1 of the GPDO - GENERAL Appeal Decisions on 17 July 2016 by Steve Speed.
← “Part 3 Class O of the GPDO – Appeal Decisions” – 7 additional appeal decisions (total = 171) … “Part 1 of the GPDO – GENERAL Appeal Decisions” – 8 additional appeal decisions (total = 824) … →