“Part 1 of the GPDO – GENERAL Appeal Decisions” – 5 additional appeal decisions (total = 1,083) …

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:

September 2018 - Code a00977 (appeal allowed):

  • Where a property has an existing (non-original) extension with a roof that joins onto the roof of the main house, then this existing extension does not reduce the volume (i.e. “cubic content”) that remains under B.1(d) for further extensions. (*)
    [Note: The flat roof of the existing extension is (slightly) above the eaves level of the main house, but below the ceiling level within the main house, and the Inspector concluded that the volume of the extension should not be taken into consideration, on the basis that “[the extension] cannot be described as being an alteration or extension to the roof of the dwelling house”].
  • The phrase “the highest part of the ... roof” relates to the property as a whole (i.e. not only to the part of the property that’s being altered or enlarged). (*)
  • For example, where a property has a secondary roof that’s lower than the main roof, then an extension on top of this secondary roof can be higher than the highest part of this secondary roof (i.e. so long as the extension is not higher than the highest part of the main roof). (*)
    [Note: The extension is higher than the ridge-line of the original three-storey rear projection].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that particular works do fall within the scope of Class B, without the Inspector referring to the issue of whether or not the works exceed what constitutes “the enlargement of a dwellinghouse consisting of an addition or alteration to its roof”. (*)
    [Note: The works include a hip-to-gable roof extension and an “L”-shaped roof extension (or similar) that covers the majority (approx two-thirds) of the roof of the rear projection].

September 2018 - Code a00976 (appeal allowed):

  • 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” is not necessarily the elevation that fronts a highway.
  • An elevation that’s opposite the “front” of the property must be “the rear wall”. (*)

September 2018 - Code a00975 (split decision):

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

September 2018 - Code a00974 (appeal dismissed):

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

September 2018 - Code a00973 (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.