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:

February 2019 - Code a01034 (appeal allowed):

• This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector (specifically) states that the volume of a pyramid is 1/3 x area of base x height (i.e. not 1/2 x area of base x height).
  [Quote: “The appellant has provided a detailed breakdown of the volume calculations for the resulting roofspace of the proposal corroborated by a Surveyor with an Advanced Mathematics degree. These calculations demonstrate that the wrong formulae were utilised by the Council in determining the volume of the C1 identified element (an oblique pyramid) and the volume of C2 (a triangular prism) at the time the application was determined. The Council used the formulae 1/2 bh where b equals the area of the base of the pyramid and h is its height for C1 and bh for C2. [...] The correct formulae for C1 is 1/3bh and for C2 it is 1/2 bh.”].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where the works have the appearance of a Class A extension that joins onto a Class B extension, and the Inspector concluded that the works should be assessed against Classes A and B.
  [Note: The roof of the proposed two-storey rear extension would join onto the face of the proposed rear dormer].
• Where a proposed Class A extension would be attached to a proposed Class B extension, then for the purposes of B.1(d) the volume (i.e. “cubic content”) of both the Class B extension and the roof of the Class A extension should be taken into consideration (i.e. rather than the volume of only the Class B extension). (*)
  [Note: The roof of the proposed two-storey rear extension would join onto the face of the proposed rear dormer].

February 2019 - Code a01033 (appeal dismissed):

• This appeal decision provides an example of where the works are on land that’s shared between neighbouring properties (or similar), and the Inspector concluded that the works do not constitute development within “the curtilage of [a / the] dwellinghouse”.
  [Note: The Inspector concludes that a roof extension (on a house) would not constitute development within “the curtilage of a dwellinghouse” on the basis that this house and another house (which was previously a detached garage) “are part of the same enclosure, and do not have their own individual curtilage”].
  [Quote: “Taking all of this into account, I find that there is no physical, functional or notional subdivision of the grounds at No. 8 so as to create separate outdoor areas for the occupiers of the two separate dwellings. Rather, it appears that the front and rear gardens are in shared use. This is not an uncommon situation when there is more than one dwelling on a plot; for example, houses subdivided into flats are frequently served by communal gardens. On the basis of the evidence currently before me I share the Council’s view that the two dwellings at No. 8 are part of the same enclosure, and do not have their own individual curtilage. It follows that the proposed roof conversion of the two-storey dwelling at No. 8 cannot be development within the curtilage of a [my emphasis] dwelling. I note the Appellant’s point that the two-storey house is an independent dwelling in its own right, unconnected with the self-contained dwelling formed by the conversion of the outbuilding. That is right, but the issue is that the two dwellings do not each have separate and distinct curtilages. I also note the Appellant’s point that a loft extension can hardly be said to result in the erosion of garden space. Again, that is right, but the issue is that a loft extension nevertheless constitutes development: to qualify as one of the classes of development that constitute Permitted Development within the terms of Part 1 of the GPDO, that development would have to take place within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse. In this particular case, it would take place within the curtilage not of “a dwellinghouse”, but rather of two dwellinghouses.”].

February 2019 - Code a01032 (appeal dismissed):

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

January 2019 - Code a01031 (appeal dismissed):

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

January 2019 - Code a01030 (appeal dismissed):

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

January 2019 - Code a01029 (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.