“Part 1 of the GPDO – GENERAL Appeal Decisions” – 7 additional appeal decisions (total = 952) …

The Part 1 of the GPDO - GENERAL Appeal Decisions document has been updated to include 7 additional appeal decisions relating to householder permitted development legislation, for which the conclusions are as follows:

July 2017 - Code a00846 (appeal dismissed):

  • It is not possible to issue an LDC for proposed works that would depend on (e.g. be attached to) other works, where the other works have been granted planning permission by the LPA but are not substantially complete.
    [Note: At the time when the application under section 192 (proposed) was submitted, the PP works had not been granted PP, and had not been begun].
  • This appeal decision states, or implies, that it is not possible for an application under section 192 (proposed) to ask the (hypothetical) question of whether it would be lawful to first substantially complete one set of works granted planning permission by the LPA, and then (subsequently) start and complete another set of works under permitted development rights.
    [Note: At the time when the application under section 192 (proposed) was submitted, the PP works had not been granted PP, and had not been begun].

July 2017 - Code a00845 (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: The secondary roof is the roof of an original two-storey rear projection on a two-storey house].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular roof extension does 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: The proposed rear dormer would join the main rear roof onto the pitched roof of the original two-storey rear projection].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector did accept the applicant’s argument that a 20cm set back isn’t “practicable”. (*)
    [Note: The “L”-shaped roof extension (or similar) extends across the original rear eaves].
  • In the second of the above diagrams, (at least) part of “Roof Extension D” “extends beyond” the outside face of “Wall 1” (i.e. for the purposes of B.2(b)(ii)). [Note: The diagrams are viewable within the “Extend beyond” topic of this document].
    [Conclusion: The roof extension does not comply with B.2(b)(ii) for the above reason].
  • For the purposes of the post-06/04/2014 version(s) of Part 1 of the GPDO, where a property has an original rear projection with a side-facing pitched roof, for which the eaves are at a lower level than the eaves of the main rear roof, then an “L”-shaped roof extension (or similar) that extends from the main rear roof onto the side roof of the original rear projection is not permitted development. [Note: The ridge-line of the original rear projection is at a higher level than the eaves of the main rear roof]. [Note: The roof extension, for at least part of its (rearmost) width, extends across the original rear eaves]. (*)
    [Conclusion: The works are contrary to B.2(b)(i)(aa) and B.2(b)(ii), noting that the roof extension does not constitute “an enlargement which joins the original roof to the roof of a rear or side extension”].

July 2017 - Code a00844 (appeal dismissed):

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

July 2017 - Code a00843 (appeal dismissed):

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

June 2017 - Code a00842 (appeal dismissed):

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

June 2017 - Code a00841 (appeal allowed):

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

June 2017 - Code a00840 (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.