“Part 1 of the GPDO – GENERAL Appeal Decisions” – 4 additional appeal decisions (total = 1,357) …

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:

December 2020 - Code a01251 (appeal allowed):

  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a proposed roof extension (under Class B) should not be treated as two separate proposed roof extensions (under Class B) for the purposes of the phrase “the enlargement” within B.2(b). [Note: In other words, the combined structure should be assessed against those limitations and conditions of Class B that apply to “the enlargement”]. (*)
    [Note: Relates to an “L”-shaped roof extension (or similar), and the Inspector refers to " a single discrete operation"].
    [Quote: “A straightforward reading of the exception in B.2(b) is that “an” enlargement should join the original roof to the roof of a rear or side extension. The L shaped dormer proposed here is a single discrete operation and thus amounts to a single enlargement. That single enlargement clearly joins the main roof of the house to the roof of the outrigger – in my view it is not appropriate to treat each arm of the L as if it were a separate development.”].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular roof extension does constitute “an enlargement which joins the original roof to the roof of a rear or side extension” for the purposes of B.2(b). (*)
    [Note: The proposed roof extension would join the main rear roof onto the pitched roof of the original two-storey rear projection].
  • 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].
  • For the purposes of the post-06/04/2014 version(s) of Part 1 of the GPDO, where a property has an original rear projection with a side-facing pitched roof, part of which is lower than the main rear roof, then an “L”-shaped roof extension (or similar) that extends from the main rear roof onto the side roof of the original rear projection is permitted development. [Note: The roof extension, for part of its (rearmost) width, extends across the original rear eaves]. (*)
    [Conclusion: The works comply with Class B. In particular, the works comply with B.2(b) on the basis that the roof extension does constitute “an enlargement which joins the original roof to the roof of a rear or side extension”].
  • 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].

December 2020 - Code a01250 (2 x appeal dismissed):

  • It is possible under Part 1 of the GPDO for two neighbouring properties to each concurrently erect a structure that adjoins the other structure across the boundary.
    [Note: The two structures are Class B roof extensions].
    [Quote: “The dormers have been constructed around the same time with cladding that extends across both buildings. Externally they could appear as one structure. However, the Council has not raised concerns within their decisions about the ability in principle to implement permitted development rights provided by Article 3, Schedule 2, Part 1, Class B of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015, as amended (GPDO), in this way. I agree that as a matter of fact and degree, these are 2 separate developments on 2 separate dwellinghouses for the purposes of the GPDO.”].
  • 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-grey cladding versus reddish-brown tiles.
    [Note: On the face and cheeks of a rear dormer versus on the roof of the main house (respectively)].
  • 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-grey cladding versus light-grey lead flashing.
    [Note: On the face and cheeks of a rear dormer versus on the roof of the main house (respectively)].
  • 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-grey cladding versus white cladding.
    [Note: On the face and cheeks of a proposed rear dormer versus on the face and cheeks of an existing front dormer (respectively)].
  • When assessing whether the materials used for the new works are “of a similar appearance to those used in the construction of the exterior of the existing dwellinghouse”, it is not possible to take into consideration the materials used for the neighbouring properties. (*)
    [Quote: “Whilst the cladding is more similar in appearance to the flat, dark-grey slates on the adjoining property, there are no similar materials that I could see on these dwellinghouses as required within paragraph B.2.(a).”].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular roof extension does constitute “an enlargement which joins the original roof to the roof of a rear or side extension” for the purposes of B.2(b). (*)
    [Note: The proposed roof extension would join the main rear roof onto the pitched roof of the original two-storey rear projection].

November 2020 - Code a01249 (appeal allowed):

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

November 2020 - Code a01248 (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.