“Part 1 of the GPDO – GENERAL Appeal Decisions” – 9 additional appeal decisions (total = 903) …

The Part 1 of the GPDO - GENERAL Appeal Decisions document has been updated to include 9 additional appeal decisions relating to householder permitted development legislation, for which the conclusions are as follows:

February 2017 - Code a00797 (1 x appeal dismissed, 1 x appeal allowed):

  • When considering whether the materials used for the new works are “of a similar appearance to those used in the construction of the exterior of the existing dwellinghouse” it is not possible to take into consideration the materials used for the neighbouring properties. (*)
    [Quote: “There is no room for any appreciation of the quality of the proposal, or whether it fits in with its neighbours. The question is simply are the proposed materials similar in appearance to the materials used in the construction of [the application site] itself.”].
  • The conditions about materials (i.e. A.3(a) and B.2(a)) do not affect the shape or size of windows. (*)
    [Quote: “I note that the DCLG “Permitted Development Rights for Householders - Technical Guidance”, says under the section dealing with Class B, conditions, that “Window frames should also be similar to those in the existing house in terms of their colour and overall shape”, but the wording of B.2.(a) is quite clear. It says “the materials used in any exterior work must be of a similar appearance to those used in the construction of the exterior of the existing dwellinghouse” (my emboldening in both cases). There is no mention of the “shape” of the windows in the GPDO itself, it is concerned only with the appearance of the materials.”].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that zinc cladding (on the face and cheeks of a rear dormer) would not be “of a similar appearance” to red tiles (on the roof of the main house).

February 2017 - Code a00796 (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). (*)
    [Note: Lower and upper part of cat-slide roof (on two-storey house)].

February 2017 - Code a00795 (appeal allowed):

  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that it is not necessary for the materials used for the new works to be “of a similar appearance” to the materials used on the same elevation of the existing house (i.e. it is sufficient to be similar to the materials used on a different elevation of the existing house).
    [Conclusion: Walls of extension to rear elevation can be similar to walls on front elevation of main house].
  • When considering whether the materials used for the new works are “of a similar appearance to those used in the construction of the exterior of the existing dwellinghouse” it is possible to take into consideration the materials used for the neighbouring properties. (*)
    [Quote: “Although the condition in the GPDO relates only to the house to which the works are taking place, the Technical Guidance makes clear that the reason for the condition is to ensure that the extension is sympathetic to its surroundings. It seems to me that there is, therefore, an intention that some leeway is to be given by the condition, so that the appearance of neighbouring buildings, and how the works relate to this, can be taken into account.”].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a larger rear extension subject of an application for an LDC is in accordance with the details that were approved (or submitted) during the prior approval process.

February 2017 - Code a00794 (appeal allowed):

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

February 2017 - Code a00793 (appeal allowed):

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

February 2017 - Code a00792 (appeal allowed):

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

January 2017 - Code a00791 (appeal allowed):

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

January 2017 - Code a00790 (appeal dismissed):

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

January 2017 - Code a00789 (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.