“Part 1 of the GPDO – GENERAL Appeal Decisions” – 6 additional appeal decisions (total = 914) …

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, for which the conclusions are as follows:

March 2017 - Code a00808 (appeal dismissed):

  • 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 and Class B. (*)
    [Note: Roof of original two-storey rear projection on two-storey house].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular roof extension would not constitute “an enlargement which joins the original roof to the roof of a rear or side extension” for the purposes of B.2(b).
    [Note: Proposed rear dormer would join the main rear roof onto the flat roof of the original two-storey rear projection]
  • For the purposes of the post-06/04/2014 versions of B.2(b), where a property has an original rear projection with a flat roof, which is at a (slightly) lower level than the eaves of the main rear roof, then B.2(b) would not allow a roof extension that extends from the main rear roof onto the flat roof of the original rear projection. [Note: The roof extension, for the whole of its width, would extend across the line of the original rear eaves]. (*)
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where an Inspector specifically disagrees with the advice within the DCLG “Permitted development rights for householders - Technical Guidance” document. [Note: In this particular case, the Inspector does not refer to a court judgment to support the contrary interpretation]. (*)
    [Note: Relates to the post-06/04/2014 versions of Part 1 Class B paragraph B.2(b) of the GPDO 2015].
  • In the second of the above diagrams, (at least) part of “Roof Extension D” “extends beyond” the outside face of “Wall 1”. [Note: In other words, “Roof Extension D” would not comply with B.2(b)(ii)]. [Note: The diagrams are viewable within the “Extend beyond” topic of this document].

March 2017 - Code a00807 (2 x appeal dismissed):

  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that significant weight should be attached to the advice within the DCLG “Permitted development rights for householders - Technical Guidance” document. (*)
  • In the first of the above diagrams, (at least) part of “Roof Extension C” “extends beyond” the outside face of “Wall 2”. [Note: In other words, “Roof Extension C” would not comply with B.2(b)(ii)]. [Note: The diagrams are viewable within the “Extend beyond” topic of this document]. (*)
  • 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 A”, lower and upper part of cat-slide roof (on two-storey house), with the extension set-in from the eaves and verges of the lower part].
  • 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 B”, lower and upper part of cat-slide roof (on two-storey house), with the extension not set-in from the eaves nor verges of the lower part].
  • More than one wall facing the same direction can be “a wall forming a side elevation” (in the case where the elevation is staggered vertically).
  • In the first of the above diagrams, “Extension A” would be subject to the “extend beyond” type restrictions in relation to “Wall 1”. [Note: The diagrams are viewable within the “Extend beyond” topic of this document]. (*)
    [Note: This appeal decision relates to “a wall forming a side elevation”].
  • Where a proposed first floor extension would be on top of an original ground floor projection, then “the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse” does have “more than one storey” / “more than a single storey”. (*)
    [Note: Relates to Part 1 Class A paragraph A.1(j) of the GPDO 2015].

March 2017 - Code a00806 (appeal dismissed):

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

March 2017 - Code a00805 (2 x appeal dismissed):

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

February 2017 - Code a00804 (appeal dismissed):

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

February 2017 - Code a00803 (appeal dismissed):

  • [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.