“GPDO Part 1 (All Classes) – LDC Appeal Decisions” – 6 additional appeal decisions (total = 580) …

The "GPDO Part 1 (All Classes) - LDC Appeal Decisions" document has been updated to include 6 additional appeal decisions relating to householder permitted development legislation (4 "LDC Appeals" and 2 "Enforcement Appeals"), for which the conclusions are as follows:

August 2014 - Code e2014-014 (ground (c) dismissed):

  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that two sets of works were undertaken as a single operation (i.e. rather than as separate operations).
  • When assessing whether two sets of works were undertaken as a single operation (or separate operations), it is a material factor as to whether one set of works was substantially completed before the other set of works was started.
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that the lack of a particular element did prevent the works from being substantially completed.
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where an LDC had been issued under section 192 (proposed), but the Inspector concluded that the works were not carried out in accordance with the LDC.

August 2014 - Code a00490 (appeal allowed):

  • Where a property has a secondary roof that’s slightly lower than the main roof, then an extension on top of this secondary roof should be assessed against Class B (i.e. rather than Class A). (*)
  • For the purposes of the 01/10/2008-05/04/2014 version of B.2(b), where a property has an original rear projection with a side-facing pitched roof, for which the eaves are at a lower level than the eaves of the main rear roof, then B.2(b) would allow a roof extension that extends from the main rear roof onto the side roof of the original rear projection. [Note: The roof extension, for at least part of its width, would extend across the line of the original rear eaves]. (*)
  • Furthermore, the above conclusion still applies even if the ridge-line of the original rear projection is at a (slightly) lower level than the eaves of the main rear roof. [Note: The roof extension, for the whole of its width, would extend across the line of the original rear eaves]. (*)
  • The phrase “the highest part of the … roof” relates to the property as a whole (i.e. not only to the part of the property that’s being altered or enlarged). (*)
  • For example, where a property has a secondary roof that’s lower than the main roof, then an extension on top of this secondary roof can be higher than the highest part of this secondary roof (i.e. so long as the extension is not higher than the highest part of the main roof). (*)

August 2014 - Code a00489 (appeal dismissed):

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

August 2014 - Code e2014-013 (ground (c) dismissed):

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

August 2014 - Code a00488 (appeal dismissed):

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

July 2014 - Code a00487 (appeal allowed):

  • [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. 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 document indicates how many appeals have supported and contradicted each particular conclusion.