The "GPDO Part 1 (All Classes) - LDC 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:
May 2020 - Code a01169 (appeal dismissed):
- This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that the following materials are not “of a similar appearance” to one-another:
- dark-coloured aluminium windows versus white UPVC windows.
[Note: On the main house and on various extensions versus on the main house (respectively)]. - An original rear wall that has been (entirely) removed still forms part of “the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse”.
[Note: This appeal decision implies (rather than states) this conclusion].
[Note: Relates to the rear wall of an original (part-width) single storey rear projection].
[Quote: “The Council argues that as the original lean-to has now been demolished, the extension is therefore now a wraparound extension that extends beyond the rear elevation of the original dwelling by 5.1 metres. However, in Article 2 Interpretation (1), the GPDO defines ‘original’ as (a) a building existing on 1st July 1948 as the building as existing on that date; or (b) in relation to a building built on or after 1st July 1948, as so built. There is no dispute between the parties that the lean-to was part of the original building. It is evident from the submitted drawings and from what I observed on site that the rear extension as built does not extend beyond the rear of the original dwelling, being the rear wall of the now demolished lean-to.”]. - Where a proposed extension (under Class A) would be attached to an existing extension, via a part that replaces an original projection at a greater height than the original projection, then the phrase “[the] total enlargement” applies to the combined structure. [Note: In other words, the combined structure should be assessed against those limitations and conditions of Class A that apply to “[the] total enlargement”].
[Note: The flat roof of the connecting part would be approx 0.7m higher than the eaves of the original projection (and approx 0.1m lower than the ridge-line of the original projection)].
[Quote: “There is no dispute between the parties that the lean-to was part of the original building. It is evident from the submitted drawings and from what I observed on site that the rear extension as built does not extend beyond the rear of the original dwelling, being the rear wall of the now demolished lean-to. However, it is also clear that even if the original lean-to had been retained, the works would result in the rear element of the extension being connected to the side element, as the eaves of the extension are higher than the eaves of the lean-to. It is made clear in A.1(ja) that any total enlargement should not exceed the limitation, being the enlarged part together with any existing enlargement of the original dwellinghouse to which it will be joined. As a result, the width of the combined side and rear extension would be more than half of the width of the original house, and would therefore exceed the limitation of Class A.1(j). Therefore, notwithstanding the prior approval that has been granted for much of the rear element of the extension, the single storey side and rear extension would not benefit from permitted development rights under Class A Part 1 Schedule 2 of the GPDO.”]. - Where an application under section 192 (proposed) is made for a roof extension that’s contrary to Class B and a roof alteration that complies with Class C, then this appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector concluded that an LDC should be refused with respect to both the roof extension and the roof alteration. [Note: In other words, the Inspector did not issue a split decision]. (*)
[Note: The Inspector dismissed the appeal with respect to “the single storey rear extension, single storey side extension, hip-to-gable roof alterations, 2 roof lights to front elevation, rear dormer and revised fenestration”].
[Quote: “Two rooflights are proposed in the front roof slope. One of them would be entirely within the larger roof that would be created by the hip-to-gable extension. The other would be largely located within the existing roof, but it is not clear whether it could practicably be installed without the roof being extended. While rooflights benefit from permitted development rights under Class C Part 1 Schedule 2 of the GPDO, in this case they form part of the hip-to-gable roof extension, which I have already established would require planning permission. The certificate cannot therefore be issued for the rooflights as they would be at least partially within an extension which requires planning permission, and cannot be severed from it. It would not therefore be possible to issue a split decision granting a certificate for the rooflights.”].
May 2020 - Code a01168 (appeal allowed):
- This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular piece of land is within the “curtilage” of the property.
[Note: The land is approx 15m-26m from the main house and separated from the main house by a vehicular accessway and a fence].
May 2020 - Code a01167 (appeal dismissed):
- [Note: To view these conclusions, please log onto the website as a member].
May 2020 - Code a01166 (appeal allowed):
- [Note: To view these conclusions, please log onto the website as a member].
May 2020 - Code a01165 (appeal dismissed):
- [Note: To view these conclusions, please log onto the website as a member].
Notes:
- To view the conclusions, summaries, and decision notices for any of the above appeals, please view the "GPDO Part 1 (All Classes) - LDC Appeal Decisions" document. As a member of the Planning Jungle website, you can view the decision notices for all of the appeals on the website 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.