The Part 1 of the GPDO - GENERAL Appeal Decisions document has been updated to include 2 additional appeal decisions relating to householder permitted development legislation (2 "LDC Appeals" and 0 "Enforcement Appeals"), for which the conclusions are as follows:
May 2013 - Code a00386 (appeal dismissed):
- No conclusions.
April 2013 - Code a00385 (appeal dismissed):
- Where there’s an existing (non-original) extension with a roof that joins onto the roof of the main house, then this existing extension does reduce the volume (i.e. “cubic content”) that remains under B.1(d) for further extensions.
- For the purposes of calculating the amount by which an existing (non-original) extension reduces the volume (i.e. “cubic content”) that remains under B.1(d) for further extensions, if the roof of the existing extension is partly above and partly below the eaves level of the main house, then the volume of both parts should be taken into consideration.
- A “juliette balcony” without a platform does not constitute a “verandah, balcony or raised platform”.
- 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.