Source: https://planningjungle.com/2018/11/19/part-1-of-the-gpdo-general-appeal-decisions-4-additional-appeal-decisions-total-1100/
Timestamp: 2020-01-25 21:02:27
Document Index: 188872518

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 1', 'art 1', 'art 11', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 1']

“Part 1 of the GPDO – GENERAL Appeal Decisions” – 4 additional appeal decisions (total = 1,100) … | The Planning Jungle website
“Part 1 of the GPDO – GENERAL Appeal Decisions” – 4 additional appeal decisions (total = 1,100) …
November 2018 - Code a00994 (appeal dismissed):
This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that the removal of (the whole of) an existing outbuilding (i.e. the demolition of an existing outbuilding) does not fall within the scope of Class E. (*)
[Note: 2 x existing outbuildings would be removed].
[Quote: “Article 3(1) of the GPDO grants planning permission for classes of development described as permitted development in Schedule 2. Class B of Part 11 of Schedule 2 identifies “Any building operation consisting of the demolition of a building” as permitted development. The planning permission granted is, however, subject to a condition (at paragraph B.2(b)(i)(aa)) that before demolition starts, an application must be made to the local planning authority for a determination as to whether the prior approval of the authority would be required as to the method of demolition and any proposed restoration of the site. I have no evidence that this pre-commencement condition which required the submission of an application to ascertain whether prior approval would be required was complied with. At the time of the application, the subject of this appeal, therefore, it would not have been lawful to demolish the buildings as no application as required by paragraph B.2(b)(i)(aa) had been made. Whilst I note the Council’s comment in the appeal representations that demolition of residential outbuildings is generally acceptable such that prior approval would not be required, that statement cannot override the need to comply with the condition subject to which permission is granted by the GPDO.”].
A property that’s in a mixed use (e.g. as residential and something else) does not benefit from Part 1 of the GPDO.
[Note: The property is in mixed use as residential and a child minding business (with 9 children being cared for by 3 adults)].
November 2018 - Code a00993 (appeal allowed):
Where a proposed extension (under Class A) would be separated from an existing extension by a relatively small gap, then this appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that the phrase “[the] total enlargement” applies to only the proposed extension. [Note: In other words, only the proposed extension should be assessed against those limitations and conditions of Class A that apply to “[the] total enlargement”].
[Note: The gap is approx 0.15m].
November 2018 - Code a00992 (appeal allowed):
November 2018 - Code a00991 (appeal dismissed):
This entry was posted in Part 1 of the GPDO - GENERAL Appeal Decisions on 19 November 2018 by Steve Speed.
← “Part 1 of the GPDO – GENERAL Appeal Decisions” – 6 additional appeal decisions (total = 1,096) … “Part 1 of the GPDO – GENERAL Appeal Decisions” – 3 additional appeal decisions (total = 1,103) … →