“GPDO Part 1 (All Classes) – LDC Appeal Decisions” – 4 additional appeal decisions (total = 1,541) …

The "GPDO Part 1 (All Classes) - LDC 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:

June 2022 - Code a01435 (split decision):

  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that it is necessary for the materials used for the new works to be “of a similar appearance” to the predominant materials of the existing house (i.e. it is not sufficient to be similar to the materials used on only relatively minor parts of the existing house). (*)
    [Conclusion: The face and cheeks of a dormer can’t be similar to the roof of a bay window or the flashing on various elements of the main house].
  • 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 only the roof extension. [Note: In other words, the Inspector did issue a split decision]. (*)
    [Note: The Inspector dismissed the appeal with respect to the rear dormer, and allowed the appeal with respect to the front rooflights].
    [Quote: “The Council has not stated any reason why the proposed rooflights would not be lawful and, taking into account Schedule 2, Part 1, Class C of the Order, I see no reason why they would not be lawful either. I also see no reason why an LDC cannot be granted for the rooflights as a discrete building operation.”].

May 2022 - Code a01434 (appeal dismissed):

  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that it is 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’t be similar to the walls of the main house].
  • 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: “I note that there are a variety of roof materials used for loft extensions on neighbouring properties. However, the GPDO does not require an assessment of roof materials found elsewhere in the local area, and as set out earlier, planning merits are of no relevance to this appeal for an LDC.”].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that significant weight should be attached to the advice within the “Permitted development rights for householders - Technical Guidance” document. (*)

May 2022 - Code a01433 (appeal dismissed):

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

May 2022 - Code a01432 (appeal dismissed):

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

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.