“Part 1 of the GPDO – GENERAL Appeal Decisions” – 9 additional appeal decisions (total = 945) …

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:

June 2017 - Code a00839 (appeal dismissed):

  • Where an outbuilding has eaves at different levels, then all of these eaves are subject to the 2.5m height limit of E.1(f). [Note: In other words, the phrase “the height of the eaves of the building” within E.1(f) applies to all of the eaves].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a new house was not substantially completed by a certain point in time.
    [Quote: “In this case the original dwelling house is still occupied at the front of the site and at the date of the Council’s site visit in June 2016 progress on the erection of the new dwelling house was described as ‘well underway’ and in an ‘advance stage of construction’. All floors and walls were in place and there was also a roof. The Council stated that the appellants were in the process of installing windows ‘to make the building weathertight’ which implies that at the date of the LDC application at the beginning of May 2016 the new dwelling was less advanced in terms of its construction. At the time of my site visit I saw that the windows had been fitted but there was no staircase, lighting or kitchen in place. It is my view therefore that the new dwelling was not substantially complete either at the date of the application or at my visit.”].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular piece of land is within the “curtilage” of the property.
    [Note: Land is approx 2m-12m from house].

June 2017 - Code a00838 (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 B (i.e. rather than Class A). (*)
    [Note: Roof of original two-storey rear projection on two-storey house].
  • Where a roof extension involves increasing the height of an existing raised parapet wall, then this additional wall does count as volume (i.e. “cubic content”) for the purposes of B.1(d).
  • 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 pitched roof of the original two-storey rear projection].
  • 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].

June 2017 - Code a00837 (appeal dismissed):

  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular structure does constitute a “verandah, balcony or raised platform”. [Note: In other words, such a structure is prevented by the limitations about balconies (i.e. A.1(k), B.1(e), and E.1(h))].
    [Conclusion: Platform with balustrade at second floor level, outside of room but covered by roof, is a “balcony”].

June 2017 - Code a00836 (appeal dismissed):

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

June 2017 - Code a00835 (appeal allowed):

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

June 2017 - Code a00834 (appeal allowed):

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

June 2017 - Code a00833 (split decision):

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

June 2017 - Code a00832 (appeal dismissed):

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

June 2017 - Code a00831 (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.