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:

December 2018 - Code a01005 (appeal allowed):

• This appeal decision provides an example of where an application was submitted under section 192 (proposed) for works that were begun (or were substantially complete), and the Inspector concluded that the application should be treated as an application under section 191 (existing). (*)
  [Note: The works were substantially complete by the time the application was submitted].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a relatively short width of wall is not “a wall forming a side elevation”. (*)
  [Note: The wall is two-and-a-half-storey (from a height of approx 1m upwards), and has width approx 0.115m].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where a property has a (relatively minor) projecting element that the Inspector concluded is not “a wall forming a side elevation”.
  [Note: The projecting element is a flight of steps (with length approx 3.1m) up to the main entrance door on the front elevation (note: underneath this flight of steps there is a “utility room”)].
• Where the original rear wall is finished in render, then the 3m/4m rear projection limit of A.1(f) should be measured from the surface of the render (i.e. rather than from the surface of the brickwork).
  [Note: The extension has length 3.02m as measured from the brickwork, and length approx 2.99m as measured from the render (note: this render has been removed as part of the works)].

December 2018 - Code a01004 (split decision):

• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that works are permitted development, without the Inspector referring to the issue that the new windows would have a significantly different shape or size to the existing windows. (*)
  [Note: The works include the installation of a set of folding/sliding glazed doors on the rear elevation at ground floor level].
• The conditions about materials (i.e. A.3(a) and B.2(a)) do not affect the shape or size of windows. (*)
  [Note: This appeal decision implies (rather than states) this conclusion].
  [Note: The face of the rear dormer would be mostly glazed, containing a set of folding/sliding glazed doors].
  [Quote: “As to condition B.2(a), I do not consider that there is sufficient substance in the Council’s case. The juxtaposition of glass and roofing materials is routinely accepted as being within the condition when roof additions and alterations are agreed to be permitted development. The condition could be satisfied in this instance by using finishing materials matching the slates in the areas at the sides of the glazing.”].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular structure does constitute a “verandah, balcony or raised platform”. [Note: In other words, such a structure is prevented by the limitations about balconies (i.e. A.1(k), B.1(e), and E.1(h))].
  [Conclusion: A flat surface at second floor level, with area (approx) 6.1m x 2.5m = 15.3m2, enclosed on 3 sides by (mostly) existing walls, and separated from a proposed rear dormer by the balustrade of the latter, is a “balcony” or a “raised platform”].

December 2018 - Code a01003 (appeal dismissed):

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

December 2018 - Code a01002 (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.