“Part 1 of the GPDO – GENERAL Appeal Decisions” – 5 additional appeal decisions (total = 1,029) …

The Part 1 of the GPDO - GENERAL Appeal Decisions document has been updated to include 5 additional appeal decisions relating to householder permitted development legislation, for which the conclusions are as follows:

April 2018 - Code a00923 (appeal dismissed):

  • The determination of “the principal elevation of the original dwellinghouse” should be based on the property as it existed on 01/07/1948 or, if built after that date, as so built. (*)
    [Quote: “[The application site] is accessed via a sweeping driveway and it is set well back from the public highway. The original building has been extended to the rear. The front is south-facing and overlooks a landscaped garden, terrace and Linton Common. Presently, the main entrance that serves the house is located in the east-facing elevation, which is a modern addition to the original dwelling. There is a side west-facing elevation. For the purposes of applying paragraph E.1(c), it is necessary to examine which elevation should be treated as the principal elevation of the original dwelling-house [my emphasis]. The latter can only be either the southern elevation fronting the substantial garden and highway, or the northern elevation which faces the driveway and rear portion of the domestic curtilage.”].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of the types of factors that should be taken into consideration when determining which elevation is “the principal elevation”.
  • “The principal elevation” of a property is not necessarily the same as the “front” of the property.
    [Note: This appeal decision implies (rather than states) this conclusion].

April 2018 - Code a00922 (appeal allowed):

  • Class G can be used concurrently with other Classes. (*)
  • For example, a proposed roof extension under Class B can include the installation or alteration of a chimney / flue / SVP under Class G. (*)
    [Note: The works include the removal of a chimney].
  • Class G does allow the removal of an existing chimney (i.e. as well as allowing the alteration or replacement of an existing chimney).
  • 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 predominant materials of the existing house (i.e. it is sufficient to be similar to the materials used on only a minority part of the existing house). (*)
    [Conclusion: The face of a dormer can be similar to the roof of a bay window / dormer window].

April 2018 - Code a00921 (appeal dismissed):

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

April 2018 - Code a00920 (appeal allowed):

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

March 2018 - Code a00919 (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.