“Part 1 of the GPDO – GENERAL Appeal Decisions” – 7 additional appeal decisions (total = 1,364) …

The Part 1 of the GPDO - GENERAL Appeal Decisions document has been updated to include 7 additional appeal decisions relating to householder permitted development legislation, for which the conclusions are as follows:

December 2020 - Code a01258 (appeal allowed):

  • 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 decking].

December 2020 - Code a01257 (appeal dismissed):

  • This appeal decision provides an example of the types of factors that should be taken into consideration when determining which elevation is “the principal elevation”.
  • Where a property has different elevations that front different highways, then “the principal elevation” is not necessarily the elevation that fronts the highway corresponding to the postal address of the property.
  • For a row of terraced properties, or a pair of semi-detached properties, it is not necessarily the case that “the principal elevation” of each property faces in the same direction.
    [Note: The application site is an end-of-terrace property].
    [Quote: “At first sight the fronts of the houses in both terraces face onto Tidings Hill. However, on inspection it is readily seen that in the case of [the application site] the entrance gate, path and front door are on the White Horse Avenue elevation. This elevation has the front door, a projecting porch roof, contrasting coloured tiles to either side of the door, and three symmetrically placed first floor windows above - again with contrasting coloured tiles. Furthermore, the existing gable of [the application site] faces onto Tidings Hill and the pitched roof faces the Avenue. This is quite unlike the situation for the other three houses in the terrace, where the front doors, porch roofs, entrance gates and pathways, and the pitched roofs are oriented towards Tidings Hill. It is apparent to me that the architectural intention was for this end house of the terrace to ‘turn the corner’ to address White Horse Avenue, and this has been achieved by means of organising the main architectural features on this elevation.”].

December 2020 - Code a01256 (appeal dismissed):

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

December 2020 - Code a01255 (appeal dismissed):

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

December 2020 - Code a01254 (appeal dismissed):

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

December 2020 - Code a01253 (appeal dismissed):

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

December 2020 - Code a01252 (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.