The "GPDO Part 1 (All Classes) - LDC Appeal Decisions" document and the "GPDO Part 1 Class A (Larger Rear Extensions) - Prior Approval Appeal Decisions" document have been updated to include 8 additional appeal decisions relating to householder permitted development legislation (4 "LDC Appeals", 1 "Enforcement Appeal", and 3 "Prior Approval Appeals"), for which the conclusions are as follows:

December 2013 - Code e2013-040 (ground (c) dismissed):

• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that two sets of works were undertaken as separate operations (i.e. rather than as a single operation).
• When assessing whether two sets of works were undertaken as a single operation (or separate operations), it is a material factor as to whether the works are physically severable. (*)
• A C4 house in multiple occupation (i.e. a “small HMO”) can benefit from Part 1 of the GPDO. (*)
• A sui generis house in multiple occupation (i.e. a “large HMO”) can benefit from Part 1 of the GPDO. (*)
• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that reddish-brown tiles (on the face and cheeks of a rear dormer) would be “of a similar appearance” to red clay tiles (on the roof of the main house).
• For the purposes of the 01/10/2008-05/04/2014 version of B.2(b), the 20cm set back should be measured from the closest point of the eaves. (*)
• Furthermore, the above interpretation, as set out by the High Court judgment dated 18/06/2013, applies from the date the legislation came into force (i.e. 01/10/2008), and therefore still applies even if the works were carried out before the date of the High Court judgment. (*)
• This is an example of a general appeal (i.e. not a prior approval appeal) where the Inspector concluded that the potential fallback position of a larger rear extension under Part 1 Class A of the GPDO should be given relatively significant weight. (*)

December 2013 - Code p00032 (appeal dismissed):

• This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector concluded that the amenity impact of the proposed development would be unacceptable.
  [Length 6.0m, eaves height 3.0m, max height 4.0m (unknown roof)].
  [Dismissed due to overbearing to side property].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when assessing the amenity impact of the proposed development, referred to the Council’s policies and appeared to give them relatively significant weight. (*)
• This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when assessing the amenity impact of the proposed development, did not refer to the Council’s guidance. (*)
• This appeal decision provides an example of where it appears that the submitted information was insufficient to be able to fully assess the amenity impact of the proposed development, but the Inspector dismissed the appeal without highlighting this issue.
  [Note: Height facing side property unclear (between 3.0m and 4.0m)].
• In the case where some parts of the submitted information contradict other parts of the submitted information, this appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector chose to assess the amenity impact of the proposed development on the basis of the information within the application form, rather than the information within the drawings.

December 2013 - Code p00031 (appeal dismissed):

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

December 2013 - Code p00030 (appeal dismissed):

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

December 2013 - Code a00436 (appeal dismissed):

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

December 2013 - Code a00435 (appeal dismissed):

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

December 2013 - Code a00434 (appeal dismissed):

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

December 2013 - Code a00433 (split decision):

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

Notes:

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