“Part 1 of the GPDO – GENERAL Appeal Decisions” – 6 additional appeal decisions (total = 728) …

The Part 1 of the GPDO - GENERAL Appeal Decisions document has been updated to include 6 additional appeal decisions relating to householder permitted development legislation (6 "LDC Appeals" and 0 "Enforcement Appeals"), for which the conclusions are as follows:

December 2015 - Code a00622 (appeal allowed):

  • Where a proposed extension would be attached to an existing extension, then in some situations the phrase “the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse” applies to the combined structure and in other situations the phrase “the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse” applies to only the proposed extension. (*)
    [Note: In my opinion, the above conclusion is questionable].

December 2015 - Code a00621 (appeal dismissed):

  • For an application under section 192 (proposed), the works should be assessed against the version of the GPDO that was in force at the time of the application. (*)
  • For example, for an application under section 192 (proposed), if a previous version of the GPDO was in force at the time of the application, but the GPDO is amended by the date the application is determined, then the works should be assessed against the previous version of the GPDO. (*)
    [Conclusion: For “Appeal A” and “Appeal B”, the time of the application was pre-15/04/2015 and therefore the works should be assessed against the pre-15/04/2015 version of the GPDO.  For “Appeal C”, the time of the application was post-15/04/2015 and therefore the works should be assessed against the post-15/04/2015 version of the GPDO].
  • 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 A (i.e. rather than Class B). (*)
    [Note: For “Appeal A” and “Appeal B”, lower and upper part of cat-slide roof (on two-storey house), with the extension not set-in from the sides of the lower part].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that works to the roof of a property would not fall within the scope of Class B, on the basis that the works would exceed what would constitute “the enlargement of a dwellinghouse consisting of an addition or alteration to its roof”. (*)
    [Note: For “Appeal A”, the works cover the entire roof of the side projection. For “Appeal B”, the works cover the entire roof of the side projection, except for a strip next to the eaves].
    [Quote: “In this case the works to the roof above the garage would be works of demolition which, as a matter of fact and degree, can be distinguished from the term addition or alteration.”].
  • 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). (*)
    [Note: For “Appeal C”, lower and upper part of cat-slide roof (on two-storey house), with the extension set-in from the sides of the lower part].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that works to the roof of a property would fall within the scope of Class B, on the basis that the works would not exceed what would constitute “the enlargement of a dwellinghouse consisting of an addition or alteration to its roof”. (*)
    [Note: For “Appeal C”, the works cover the entire roof of the side projection, except for a strip next to the eaves and strips next to both verges].
    [Quote: “However in this case the appellant says that the works proposed are an alteration of the ‘catslide’ roof and the works would be entirely within the roof slope. I agree that in this appeal the works would be an addition or alteration to its roof and Class B applies.”].
  • For the purposes of the post-06/04/2014 versions of B.2(b), where the original eaves have been removed and not reinstated, it is not possible to comply with B.2(b).

December 2015 - Code a00620 (appeal dismissed):

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

December 2015 - Code a00619 (appeal dismissed):

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

November 2015 - Code a00618 (appeal allowed):

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

November 2015 - Code a00617 (appeal allowed):

  • [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.