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 a01131 (appeal dismissed):

• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that the roof pitch of the extension is not the same as the roof pitch of the original house.
  [Note: The extension has a flat roof, whereas the roof pitch of the main house is approx 40 degrees].
• The term “eaves” does apply to the roof of a typical dormer (or a similar projecting structure). (*)
  [Conclusion: The phrase “the height of the eaves of the enlarged part” (within Part 1 Class A paragraph A.1(i) of the GPDO 2015) does apply to the flat roof of a proposed side dormer].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that it is necessary for the materials used for a particular element (e.g. walls, roofs, windows, etc) of the new works to be “of a similar appearance” to the materials used for the equivalent element of the existing house. (*)
  [Conclusion: The face of a dormer can’t be similar to the windows of the main house].
• If an applicant does not provide information as to whether a proposed development would comply with the conditions of a Class, then an LDC should be refused on this basis. (*)
• For example, if the applicant does not specify whether the new upper-floor side windows would be obscure-glazed and non-opening, then an LDC should be refused on this basis. (*)

February 2020 - Code a01130 (appeal dismissed):

• Where the width of a property varies, then the “width of the original dwellinghouse” should be calculated at its widest point.
• The side wall of an original (part-width) rear projection (i.e. the side wall facing the infill area) is “a wall forming a side elevation”. (*)
  [Note: The original rear projection is single storey].
• For example, an extension to the side of an original (part-width) rear projection where the extension has a width greater than half the width of the original house is not permitted development. (*)
• An original side wall that has been (entirely) removed still constitutes “a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse”. (*)
  [Note: This appeal decision implies (rather than states) this conclusion].
  [Note: Relates to the side wall of an original (part-width) single storey rear projection].
• Where part of an extension extends beyond an original side wall, then the restrictions of A.1(j) apply to the entire extension (i.e. not only to that part of the extension that extends beyond the original side wall). (*)
• For example, where part of an extension extends beyond an original side wall, then the overall width of the (entire) extension can not be “greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse”, even if the part of the extension that extends beyond the original side wall does not do so by more than half the width of the house. (*)

February 2020 - Code a01129 (appeal allowed):

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

February 2020 - Code a01128 (split decision):

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

February 2020 - Code a01127 (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.