Certificate of Lawful Development Appeal Decisions by category of development.

The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995
Part 1 (as amended on 1 October 2008) 

General

     It is not possible as a single operation to erect an extension where part of it has been granted planning permission by the Council and the other part is permitted development.
[Source: February 2010 - Code a00095].
[Source: September 2010 - Code a00137].

·       It is not possible to issue a certificate of lawfulness for a proposed extension that would depend on (e.g. be attached to) another extension, where the other extension (which would not be permitted development itself) has been granted planning permission but has not yet been substantially completed.
[Source: May 2011 - Code a00240].

 

·       Permitted development rights do not apply to an unauthorised, unlawful structure.
[Source: February 2010 - Code a00092].

·       In the case where building works were begun prior to 01/10/2008 and have already been substantially completed, albeit unlawfully, it is not possible to now further alter the building under the limitations of the previous version of Part 1.
[Source: February 2011 - Code a00208].

·       Where an application is made for a ground floor extension and a roof extension (i.e. separate extensions, but submitted as part of one application), then a certificate can not be issued because the roof extension would not fall within Class A, and the ground floor extension would not fall within any other Class.
[Note: In my opinion, the above conclusion is highly questionable, because it would appear to be contrary to many years of standard practice by LPAs and other Inspectors].
[Source: August 2009 - Code a00021].

·       In an application for a certificate of lawfulness, the burden of proof is firmly on the applicant.
[Source: October 2009 - Code a00031].
[Source: November 2009 - Code a00037].
[Source: November 2009 - Code a00042].
[Source: January 2010 - Code a00074].
[Source: February 2010 - Code a00095].
[Source: March 2010 - Code a00110].
[Source: May 2010 - Code a00118].
[Source: July 2010 - Code a00129].
[Source: September 2010 - Code a00134].
[Source: September 2010 - Code a00133].
[Source: November 2010 - Code a00149].
[Source: December 2010 - Code a00182]
[Source: December 2010 - Code a00183].
[Source: January 2011 - Code a00198].
[Source: January 2011 - Code a00200].
[Source: March 2011 - Code a00218].
[Note: As the above conclusion regularly appears in appeal decisions, and has not been contradicted, from March 2011 onwards I will not normally add subsequent appeal decisions to the above list].
[Source: June 2011 - Code a00249].

·       Where an applicant submits contradictory information (for example, where one drawing indicates that a particular limitation or condition would be met, but another drawing indicates that the same limitation or condition would not be met) then the application should be refused.
[Source: November 2009 - Code a00042].
[Source: April 2010 - Code a00114].

·       Where there is a discrepancy on a drawing between annotated dimensions and those produced from scaling, the annotated dimensions have precedence.
[Source: May 2010 - Code a00119].

·       Where the submitted drawings are fundamentally incorrect, a certificate can not be issued.
[Source: February 2011 - Code a00207].

·       Where a submitted application form states that certain works are being applied for, and the proposed drawings show additional works with annotations indicating that they are not part of the application, then the application should be determined without being affected by the additional works.
[Source: September 2010 - Code a00140].

·       It is possible for an external metal staircase to be classed either as not development, or as permitted development.
[Note: In my opinion, the above conclusion is highly questionable]
[Source: December 2010 - Code a00169].

·       Where a previous extension has been added to an original wall or elevation, and then a proposed new extension would be added to the previous extension (i.e. so that the proposed new extension would not in itself be directly attached to the original wall or elevation), then the proposed new extension would still “extend beyond” that original wall or elevation.
[Source: June 2010 - Code a00125].
[Source: December 2010 - Code a00176].

·       When part of the original structure of a property is demolished, there is no automatic right to reinstate it (assuming that it does not comply with any of the Classes of permitted development legislation).
[Source: December 2010 - Code a00180].

·       Part 1 of the GPDO does not apply to a property that is in use as a sui generis house in multiple occupation (i.e. a “large HMO”).
[Source: July 2011 - Code a00261].

Download documents and diagrams of useful

Permitted Development information