“Part 1 of the GPDO – GENERAL Appeal Decisions” – 3 additional appeal decisions (total = 1,551) …

The Part 1 of the GPDO - GENERAL Appeal Decisions document has been updated to include 3 additional appeal decisions relating to householder permitted development legislation, for which the conclusions are as follows:

July 2022 - Code a01445 (split decision):

  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a proposed extension (under Class A) should not be treated as two separate proposed extensions (under Class A) for the purposes of the phrase “the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse”. [Note: In other words, the combined structure should be assessed against those limitations and conditions of Class A that apply to “the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse”].
    [Note: Relates to a part single-storey / part two-storey rear extension, where the two parts would be fully attached to one-another, and the Inspector refers to “a proposed single enlargement”].
    [Quote: “Also relevant to my consideration of some of the criteria of A.1. is how I consider the proposed enlargement to the rear, described separately in the LDC application as a single storey rear extension and two storey rear extension. The appellants have approached their case by treating these as two separate elements of proposed development; suggesting that, for example, the limitations imposed by A.1.(h) would only apply to the element they describe as a two storey rear extension, and not to the element referred to as a single storey rear extension. Having considered the plans submitted, it is clear that these two elements comprise a single and discreet development, forming a proposed single enlargement of the dwellinghouse. The single storey element would not be severable from the two storey element, and vice versa. As proposed on the plans, one part of the enlargement could not be constructed without the other.”].
  • Where it’s proposed to erect a two-storey rear extension, then the restrictions of A.1(h) would apply to both storeys. (*)
    [Note: The extension is actually a part single-storey / part two-storey rear extension].
  • For example, it is not possible to erect (as a single operation) a two-storey rear extension that has a ground floor that’s within 7m of the rear boundary (i.e. and a first floor that’s not within 7m of the rear boundary). (*)
    [Note: The extension is actually a part single-storey / part two-storey rear extension that has a single storey part that’s within 7m of the rear boundary (i.e. and a two-storey part that’s not within 7m of the rear boundary)].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular boundary is “opposite” the rear wall of the house.
    [Note: The angle between the boundary and the rear wall is approx 40 degrees (rather than the typical angle for a rear boundary of 0 degrees (i.e. parallel))].
  • Where part of an extension is within 2m of a boundary, then the 3m eaves height limit of A.1(i) applies to the entire extension (i.e. not only to that part of the extension that’s within 2m of the boundary). (*)
  • In the above diagrams, “Extension F” is subject to the “extend beyond” type restrictions in relation to “Wall 1” and “Wall 2”. [Note: The diagrams are viewable within the “Extend beyond” topic of this document].
    [Note: This appeal decision relates to “the rear wall”].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where the submitted information contained inconsistencies (or similar), and the Inspector concluded that an LDC should not be refused on this basis.
    [Note: The height of the ridge-line of the adjoining semi-detached property is incorrectly shown on (at least) some of the submitted drawings].
  • A “juliette balcony” without a platform does not constitute a “verandah, balcony or raised platform”. [Note: In other words, such a structure is not prevented by the limitations about balconies (i.e. A.1(k), B.1(e), and E.1(h))].
    [Note: This appeal decision implies (rather than states) this conclusion].

July 2022 - Code a01444 (appeal allowed):

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

July 2022 - Code a01443 (appeal dismissed):

  • [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.