Source: https://planningjungle.com/2020/03/10/part-1-of-the-gpdo-general-appeal-decisions-4-additional-appeal-decisions-total-1227/
Timestamp: 2020-03-28 18:13:29
Document Index: 91162008

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

“Part 1 of the GPDO – GENERAL Appeal Decisions” – 4 additional appeal decisions (total = 1,227) … | The Planning Jungle website
“Part 1 of the GPDO – GENERAL Appeal Decisions” – 4 additional appeal decisions (total = 1,227) …
The Part 1 of the GPDO - GENERAL Appeal Decisions document has been updated to include 4 additional appeal decisions relating to householder permitted development legislation, for which the conclusions are as follows:
February 2020 - Code a01121 (appeal dismissed):
This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular property is not a “dwellinghouse” for the purposes of Part 1 of the GPDO.
[Note: The Inspector concludes that the building is not a “dwellinghouse”, even though an LDC under section 191 (existing) was previously issued for “Erection of a building and its use as a single dwelling for a continuous period in excess of four years”].
[Quote: “The test is that if no reasonable person would look at a particular structure used as a dwellinghouse and identify it as such, it is justifiable to conclude, as a matter of fact, it is not a dwellinghouse. In my view, [the] building does not look like a dwelling. It is fitted out and furnished to a good domestic standard. However, its external appearance is that of a large shed, built with materials and finishes unsuitable and unfit for residential occupation. The building has a several windows, their curtain netting giving some hint of domestic use. But the strong contrast with recently built housing at Birch Farm endorses the view that the appeal building does not look as if built for residential occupation. It is not a dwellinghouse such that concessions in Schedule 2, Part 1, to the Order are available.”].
This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular piece of land is not within the “curtilage” of the property.
[Note: The Inspector concludes that “I am not persuaded that any land surrounding [the] building is curtilage land associated with its residential use”].
February 2020 - Code a01120 (appeal dismissed):
[Quote: “In my view, [the] building does not look like a dwelling. It is fitted out internally and furnished to a good domestic standard. However, its external appearance is that of a large shed, built with materials and finishes unsuitable and normally unfit for residential occupation. The building has several windows, their curtain netting giving some hint of domestic use. But the structure itself has more the look of a storage shed. The strong contrast with recently built housing at Birch Farm endorses the view that the appeal building does not look as if built for residential occupation. The test that “no reasonable person would look at a particular structure used as a dwellinghouse and identify it as such” is, in my view, met. The 12 July 2017 [...] lawful development certificate describes “... building and its use as a single dwelling ....”. It does not say it is a dwellinghouse. In my view, the building does not benefit from any Schedule 2, Part 1 permitted development rights in respect of dwellinghouses set out in the Order.”].
[Note: The Inspector concludes that “I am not persuaded that any land immediately surrounding [the] building is curtilage land associated with its residential use”].
January 2020 - Code a01119 (appeal dismissed):
January 2020 - Code a01118 (appeal dismissed):
This entry was posted in Part 1 of the GPDO - GENERAL Appeal Decisions on 10 March 2020 by Steve Speed.
← “Part 3 Class M of the GPDO – Appeal Decisions” – 2 additional appeal decisions (total = 136) … The government announces its intention to make further changes to the planning system, including PD rights … →