“Part 1 of the GPDO – GENERAL Appeal Decisions” – 4 additional appeal decisions (total = 1,537) …

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:

May 2022 - Code a01431 (appeal dismissed):

  • Where a property has an existing (non-original) extension with a roof that does not join onto the roof of the main house, then this existing extension does not reduce the volume (i.e. “cubic content”) that remains under B.1(d) for further extensions. (*)
    [Note: The ridge-line of the existing single storey rear extension is at a significantly lower level than the eaves of the main rear roof of the two-storey house].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular space does not count as volume (i.e. “cubic content”) for the purposes of B.1(d).
    [Note: The space is described by the Inspector as the “eaves” / “roof overhang” of the hip-to-gable roof extension. It appears that this is referring to the space that’s outside the wall of the new gable end, but underneath the overhanging roof of the new gable end (which overhangs the wall by approx 0.3m).].
    [Quote: “While there seems to be no disagreement regarding the measurements for the proposed dormer, there is conflict between the parties concerning the hip to gable extension where the argument centres around the inclusion of the eaves within the calculations of the volume that would be created. The Technical Guidance aids in this matter, stating that “the enlarged part of the roof must not extend beyond the outer face of any wall of the original house if it is to qualify as permitted development, unless it joins the original roof to the roof of a rear or side extension. An interpretative provision at paragraph B.4 of Class B clarifies that for these purposes any roof tiles, guttering, fascias, barge boards or other minor roof details which overhang the outer face of the wall should not be considered part of the roof enlargement.” Therefore, in these circumstances, the roof overhang is no more than is necessary and I consider it should be discounted for the purposes of applying limitations of cubic capacity.”].
  • The conditions about materials (i.e. A.3(a) and B.2(a)) do affect the shape or size of windows. (*)
    [Note: The face of the rear dormer would contain 1 x window with width approx 2.1m and height approx 2.3m, and 2 x windows with width approx 1.0m and height approx 2.3m].
    [Quote: “However, and notwithstanding this, development is permitted by Class B subject to the following condition – B.2(a) the materials used in any exterior work shall be of a similar appearance to those used in the construction of the exterior of the existing dwellinghouse. This condition is intended to ensure that any addition or alteration to a roof results in an appearance that minimises visual impact and is sympathetic to the existing house. The Technical Guidance interprets this as ‘the face and sides of a dormer window should be finished using materials that give a similar visual appearance to existing house… materials used for facing a dormer should appear to be of similar colour and design to the materials used in the main roof of the house when viewed from ground level. Window frames should also be similar to those in the existing house in terms of their colour and overall shape.’ While I note the proposed materials for the dormer would match that of the existing house, and although it is the appellants’ intention to amend this through the submission of a planning application, the fenestration is substantially different to the existing house in terms of overall shape and size. In this respect, the proposal would not comply with condition B.2(a).”].
  • 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. (*)

May 2022 - Code a01430 (appeal allowed):

  • Where a property has an existing (non-original) extension with a roof that does not join onto the roof of the main house, then this existing extension does not reduce the volume (i.e. “cubic content”) that remains under B.1(d) for further extensions. (*)
    [Note: In this particular case, the single storey rear extension is proposed (rather than existing).  However, the Inspector states that “Previous or proposed extensions that did not result in an enlargement to the original roof space do not form part of that calculation ”].
    [Note: The ridge-line of the proposed single storey rear extension would be at a significantly lower level than the eaves of the main rear roof of the two-storey house].

May 2022 - Code a01429 (appeal dismissed):

  • [Note: To view this information, please log onto the website with a current membership.]

May 2022 - Code a01428 (appeal allowed):

  • [Note: To view this information, please log onto the website with a current membership.]

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.