“Part 1 of the GPDO – GENERAL Appeal Decisions” – 5 additional appeal decisions (total = 1,116) …

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:

January 2019 - Code a01010 (appeal dismissed):

  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that the phrase “the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse” does apply to a particular structure. [Note: In other words, the structure should be assessed against those limitations and conditions of Class A that apply to “the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse”].
    [Note: The structure is a curved bay window (with length approx 0.3m) on the front elevation at ground floor level].
  • A roof slope does not form part of “a wall [forming / which forms] the principal elevation”.
    [Quote: “I now turn to the limitations set out in Class A. Whilst the works comply with most of them, limitation A.1(e)(i) states that development is not permitted if the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would extend beyond a wall which forms the principal elevation of the original dwellinghouse. The word “wall” in this provision is of significance. There is no dispute that the front elevation (the elevation affected by the works) is the principal elevation for the purposes of Class A. The bow window sits beneath the existing soffit and does not project forward of the existing roof overhang. However, to be permitted development it is the “wall” comprised in the principal elevation, not the overhanging roof elements, that the works must not extend beyond. The bow window clearly does project beyond the wall and, thus, fails to accord with A.1(e)(i).”].

December 2018 - Code a01009 (appeal allowed):

  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a relatively short width of wall is “a wall forming a side elevation”. (*)
    [Note: The wall is two-storey, and has width approx 1.5m].
  • Where a proposed extension (under Class A) would be separated from another proposed extension (under Class A) by a relatively large gap, then this appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that the phrase “the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse” applies to each of the extensions separately. [Note: In other words, each of the extensions should be assessed individually against those limitations and conditions of Class A that apply to “the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse”]. (*)
    [Note: The side extension and the rear extension would be separated by the corner of the main house].

December 2018 - Code a01008 (appeal dismissed):

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

December 2018 - Code a01007 (appeal dismissed):

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

December 2018 - Code a01006 (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.