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:

February 2020 - Code a01126 (appeal allowed):

• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular structure has “a single storey” (i.e. rather than “more than a single storey” / “more than one storey”).
  [Note: The internal space within the outbuilding is open from the ground floor level up to the underside of the ridge-line (a maximum internal height of approx 6.6m)].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that the excavation of a certain volume of earth (i.e. as part of other works) does fall within the scope of Part 1 of the GPDO. (*)
  [Note: Up to approx 3.5m depth was excavated during the erection of an outbuilding].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that particular engineering operations do not constitute a separate activity of substance (e.g. with reference to the “Eatherley” High Court judgment dated 02/12/2016).
  [Quote: “The Courts have held that excavation works can amount to a separate act of substance (e.g. an engineering operation) requiring planning permission or, put another way, can go beyond what is incidental to what is permitted development. However, this is a matter for the decision maker on a fact and degree basis. In this case, I have no reason to doubt that the excavation works were carried out to facilitate the erection of the garage. Furthermore, I note that the appellant says that the works were carried out as one single operation and within one month. In addition, I can fully understand why the excavation works were carried out, i.e. to ensure a flat floor level for the parking of the said vehicles. I acknowledge the Council’s concern about the resultant height of the garage building, but I have already found that in terms of its height and position it is permitted development under Class E of the Order. I would also add that the Order does not in itself prohibit Class E permitted development buildings merely because they would be provided on a sloping site. Indeed, Article 1(3) of the Order makes reference to land that is not “uniform”. On the evidence before me, and as a matter of fact and degree, I find that the excavation works that were carried out in association with the erection of the garage building were incidental to the Class E permitted development.”].
• The height of a structure should be measured from the highest part of the adjacent ground level (i.e. rather than from each part of the adjacent ground level). (*)
  [Note: The structure is an outbuilding].

February 2020 - Code a01125 (appeal allowed):

• Where a property has a secondary roof that’s slightly 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 two-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].

February 2020 - Code a01124 (appeal allowed):

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

February 2020 - Code a01123 (appeal allowed):

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

February 2020 - Code a01122 (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.