“Part 1 of the GPDO – GENERAL Appeal Decisions” – 6 additional appeal decisions (total = 1,096) …

The Part 1 of the GPDO - GENERAL Appeal Decisions document has been updated to include 6 additional appeal decisions relating to householder permitted development legislation, for which the conclusions are as follows:

October 2018 - Code a00990 (appeal allowed):

  • In the first of the above diagrams, no part of “Roof Extension C” “extends beyond” the outside face of either “Wall 1” or “Wall 2” (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 comply with B.2(b)(ii) for the above reason].
  • Where a property has a secondary roof that’s significantly 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 three-storey 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 two-storey rear projection].

October 2018 - Code a00989 (appeal dismissed):

  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular hard surface should be assessed against Class F (i.e. rather than Class A or Class E).
    [Note: This appeal decision implies (rather than states) this conclusion].
    [Note: The surface is block paving].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular hard surface does not comply with the porous requirement of F.2. [Note: In other words, both 1) the hard surface is not made of porous materials, and 2) provision is not made to direct run-off water from the hard surface to a permeable or porous area or surface within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse].
    [Note: The Inspector states that “the [block] paving has been partly pointed, which is likely to have the effect of infilling the voids and restricting permeability”].

October 2018 - Code a00988 (appeal dismissed):

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

October 2018 - Code a00987 (appeal dismissed):

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

October 2018 - Code a00986 (appeal dismissed):

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

October 2018 - Code a00985 (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.