The Part 1 of the GPDO - GENERAL Appeal Decisions document has been updated to include 13 additional appeal decisions relating to householder permitted development legislation, for which the conclusions are as follows:

February 2016 - Code a00650 (appeal dismissed):

• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that dark-grey zinc cladding (on the face and cheeks of a rear dormer) would not be “of a similar appearance” to dark-brown concrete tiles (on the roof of the main house).
• Where it’s proposed (as a single operation) to erect a roof extension (under Class B) and to re-roof the property (under Class C), the materials of the roof extension must be “of a similar appearance” to the materials that existed before the works (including the re-roofing) are started.

February 2016 - Code a00649 (appeal allowed):

• Where part of an extension would extend beyond an original side wall, the restrictions of A.1(j) would apply only to that part of the extension that extends beyond the original side wall (i.e. not to the entire extension). (*)
• For example, where part of an extension would extend beyond an original side wall, the overall width of the (entire) extension can be “greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse”, so long as the part of the extension that extends beyond the original side wall would not do so by more than half the width of the house. (*)
• For a property with a rectangular footprint, the combination of A.1(j) and A.1(f)/A.1(g)/A.1(h) would allow an “L”-shaped extension that covers the original side wall and then wraps-around the corner to cover the original rear wall. (*)
  [Note: This appeal decision implies (rather than states) this conclusion].

February 2016 - Code a00648 (appeal dismissed):

• It is not possible under Part 1 of the GPDO for a property to erect a structure that covers the full width of the party wall. (*)
  [Note: Class B extension involves building up across full width of party wall].
• In particular, in reaching the above conclusion, the Inspector noted the “curtilage” of the property does not include the full width of the party wall. (*)
  [Quote: “A small part of the addition is built over part of the party wall which is in the ownership of No.8. Whilst the encroachment only appears from the submitted plans to be a matter of about 150mm I nevertheless interpret this as amounting to development outside the curtilage of No.6 within the curtilage of No.8.”].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that dark-grey artificial slates (on the face of a rear dormer) would not be “of a similar appearance” to dark-brown concrete tiles (on the roof of the main house).
  [Note: Inspector concluded that these materials are similar in terms of “colour”, but not similar in terms of “shape, design and finish”].

February 2016 - Code a00647 (appeal allowed):

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

February 2016 - Code a00646 (appeal dismissed):

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

February 2016 - Code a00645 (appeal dismissed):

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

February 2016 - Code a00644 (appeal allowed):

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

February 2016 - Code a00643 (appeal dismissed):

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

January 2016 - Code a00642 (appeal dismissed):

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

January 2016 - Code a00641 (appeal dismissed):

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

January 2016 - Code a00640 (appeal dismissed):

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

January 2016 - Code a00639 (appeal allowed):

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

January 2016 - Code a00638 (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.