“Part 1 of the GPDO – GENERAL Appeal Decisions” – 4 additional appeal decisions (total = 1,251) …

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:

March 2020 - Code a01145 (appeal allowed):

  • An application under section 192 (proposed) should be assessed on the basis of the hypothetical works that are shown on the submitted drawings (i.e. rather than the actual works that have been carried out on the site). (*)
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that it is not 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 and cheeks of a dormer can be similar to the windows of the main house].
  • 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: Each of the cheeks of the rear dormer would be mostly glazed, containing a triangular-shaped window].
    [Quote: “The dormer shown on the drawings provided has windows on each of its vertical elevations. There is no evidence before me to indicate that such a design cannot be permitted by the Order. Moreover, there is no evidence the dormer proposed in the application would not comply with condition B.2.(a).”].
  • The conditions about materials (i.e. A.3(a) and B.2(a)) do not affect the extent to which an elevation is glazed. (*)
    [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. Each of the cheeks of the rear dormer would be mostly glazed, containing a triangular-shaped window].
    [Quote: “The dormer shown on the drawings provided has windows on each of its vertical elevations. There is no evidence before me to indicate that such a design cannot be permitted by the Order. Moreover, there is no evidence the dormer proposed in the application would not comply with condition B.2.(a).”].
  • A “juliette balcony” without a platform does not constitute a “verandah, balcony or raised platform”. [Note: In other words, such a structure is not prevented by the limitations about balconies (i.e. A.1(k), B.1(e), and E.1(h))].
    [Note: This appeal decision implies (rather than states) this conclusion].
  • 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].

March 2020 - Code a01144 (appeal dismissed):

  • In an application for an LDC, the burden of proof is firmly on the applicant.
  • For an application under section 192 (proposed), the (hypothetical) question is whether the works would be lawful if begun at the time of the application. (*)
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a relatively minor element of a roof extension should be considered part of “the enlargement” when measuring the 20cm set back.
    [Conclusion: The balustrade of a “juliette balcony” on a dormer can’t be within 20cm of the eaves].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector did not accept the applicant’s argument that a 20cm set back isn’t “practicable”. (*)
    [Note: The balustrade of a “juliette balcony” on a rear dormer is not set back from the original rear eaves].

March 2020 - Code a01143 (appeal dismissed):

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

March 2020 - Code a01142 (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.