Source: https://planningjungle.com/2014/02/01/part-1-of-the-gpdo-appeal-decision-summaries-6-additional-appeal-decisions-total-575/
Timestamp: 2019-08-24 12:27:25
Document Index: 16195081

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

“Part 1 of the GPDO – Appeal Decision Summaries” – 6 additional appeal decisions (total = 533 + 42) … | The Planning Jungle website
“Part 1 of the GPDO – Appeal Decision Summaries” – 6 additional appeal decisions (total = 533 + 42) …
January 2014 - Code a00455 (split decision):
This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that the fact that works on one part of a building were unlawful would not prevent works on another part of the building from being permitted development. (*)
January 2014 - Code a00454 (appeal dismissed):
Where an existing outbuilding is lawful, but already exceeds the tolerances of Class E (e.g. the outbuilding was granted planning permission by the LPA, or was erected under the previous version of Class E, or has become lawful through the passage of time, etc), then it is possible to undertake alterations to this outbuilding under Class E (i.e. alterations that would not affect the dimensions of the outbuilding). (*)
This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that particular works to an outbuilding would constitute “the provision … of [an outbuilding]” (i.e. rather than “the maintenance, improvement or other alteration of [an outbuilding]”).
January 2014 - Code a00453 (appeal dismissed):
January 2014 - Code a00452 (appeal dismissed):
January 2014 - Code p00042 (appeal dismissed):
[Length 6.0m, eaves height 2.9m, max height ~3.5m (flat roof)].
[Dismissed due to loss of outlook / overbearing to side property].
This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when assessing the amenity impact of the proposed development upon an adjoining premises that did not submit an objection, gave relatively limited weight to the fact that the adjoining premises did not submit an objection. (*)
[Note: Side properties stated that they do not object to the proposals].
[Quote: “I do not find it to be sufficient to outweigh my concern”].
January 2014 - Code p00041 (appeal dismissed):
This entry was posted in Part 1 of the GPDO - GENERAL Appeal Decisions, Part 1 of the GPDO - PRIOR APPROVAL Appeal Decisions on 1 February 2014 by Steve Speed.
← “Part 1 of the GPDO – Incidental Appeal Decisions” – 1 additional appeal decision (total = 118) … IMPORTANT: The Planning Inspectorate has advised its Inspectors that an HMO can benefit from Part 1 of the GPDO … →