“Part 1 of the GPDO – Appeal Decision Summaries” – 3 additional appeal decisions (total = 317) …

The Part 1 of the GPDO - GENERAL Appeal Decisions document has been updated to include 3 additional appeal decisions relating to householder permitted development legislation, for which the conclusions are as follows:

May 2012 - Code a00317 (appeal allowed):

  • In the first of the above diagrams, “Extension A” would be subject to the “extend beyond” type restrictions in relation to “Wall 1”. [Note: The diagrams are viewable within the “Extend beyond” topic of this document]. (*)
  • Where a proposed extension would be separated from another proposed extension by a relatively small gap, then this appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that the phrase “the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse” applies to each of the extensions separately. [Note: In other words, each of the extensions should be assessed individually against those limitations and conditions of Class A that apply to the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse]. (*)
  • For a property with a rectangular footprint, this appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a relatively small gap between two extensions would be sufficient for the combination of A.1(j) and A.1(f)/A.1(g)/A.1(h) to allow an “l”-shaped extension that covers the original side wall and then projects directly rearward up to 3m/4m/6m/8m beyond the line of the original rear wall, plus another separate “–“-shaped extension that covers the original rear wall. (*)
  • The excavation of a basement does fall within the scope of Class A.
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that the excavation of a certain volume of earth (i.e. as part of other works) does fall within the scope of Part 1 of the GPDO. (*)
  • Where it’s proposed to erect two separate side extensions, one on each side of a detached house, then each of these side extensions could have a width up to half the width of the original dwellinghouse (i.e. this limit would not apply to the combined width of these side extensions). (*)
  • For the purposes of the 01/10/2008-14/04/2015 version of A.1(e) (i.e. A.1(d)), where the principal elevation does not front a highway, an extension under Class A can extend beyond a wall that forms the principal elevation.
  • Furthermore, in such cases, the amount by which the extension can extend beyond the principal elevation does not appear to be directly(*) restricted by Class A. [(*) i.e. other than the general requirement of Part 1 of the GPDO that the extension is within the “curtilage” of the dwellinghouse, and the requirement of A.1(b) that not more than 50% of the original garden is covered by buildings].
  • Class A does allow an extension with a roof that would join onto the roof of the main house. (*)
  • Where the roof of the extension would have the same angle as, but a different orientation to, the roof of the original house, then this would comply with A.3(c).

April 2012 - Code a00316 (appeal dismissed):

  • [Note: To view these conclusions, please log onto the website as a member].

April 2012 - Code a00315 (appeal dismissed):

  • [Note: To view these conclusions, please log onto the website as a member].

Notes:

  • To view the conclusions, full summaries, and decision notices for any of the above appeals, please view the Part 1 of the GPDO - GENERAL Appeal Decisions document. As a member of the Planning Jungle website, you can view the decision notices for all of the appeals within the above document for no extra cost.
  • Any of the above conclusions marked with a "(*)" contradict other appeal decisions. The "Reference Section" within the above document indicates how many appeals have supported and contradicted each particular conclusion.