The Part 1 of the GPDO - GENERAL Appeal Decisions document has been updated to include 4 additional appeal decisions relating to householder permitted development legislation, for which the conclusions are as follows:

May 2018 - Code a00942 (appeal dismissed):

• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a roof slope that’s significantly set back from a forward projection of the property does form part of “the principal elevation”.
  [Note: The roof slope is set back by approx 4.8m].
• In the second of the above diagrams, “Roof Extension A” does not comply with B.1(c). [Note: The diagrams are viewable within the “Extend beyond” topic of this document].
  [Note: The roof extension extends directly rearwards onto the corner part of the recessed front roof].

May 2018 - Code a00941 (appeal dismissed):

• Class G can not be used concurrently with other Classes. (*)
• For example, a proposed extension under Class A can not include the installation or alteration of a chimney / flue / SVP under Class G. (*)
  [Note: The works include the installation of an SVP (which would replace an existing SVP)].
• This appeal decision states, or implies, that the successful completion of the prior approval process is not legally equivalent to confirmation that the proposed development would be lawful (i.e. confirmation that it would comply with all of the other limitations and conditions of Part 1 Class A). (*)
  [Quote: "The information pursuant to condition A.4(2) was received by the Council on 13 July 2016. The Council’s notification that prior approval had been refused was issued on 2 September 2016, some 51 days after receipt. Thus, having regard to condition A.4(10), the appellant argues that the development is lawful. However, A.4(10) is a condition applied to development that is permitted by Class A which exceeds the limits in paragraph A.1(f) but is allowed by A.1(g). As it has not been demonstrated, on the balance of probabilities, that the extension would meet the limitations of A.1(g) and A.1(k), the development is not permitted under Class A. Thus, the conditions under paragraph A.4 are not applicable to it. As the Council points out the Courts have held that if the local authority fails to make a determination within the stipulated time period, the developer could proceed only with development which was permitted development. Development which was not permitted development could not become permitted by default. That is the case here."].

May 2018 - Code a00940 (appeal allowed):

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

May 2018 - Code a00939 (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.