“Part 1 of the GPDO – GENERAL Appeal Decisions” – 4 additional appeal decisions (total = 1,560) …

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:

August 2022 - Code a01454 (appeal dismissed):

  • It is not possible to issue an LDC under section 192 (proposed) for a larger rear extension if the developer has not successfully completed the prior approval process before the time of the application for the LDC.
  • In the first of the above diagrams, “Extension A” is subject to the “extend beyond” type restrictions in relation to “Wall 1”. [Note: The diagrams are viewable within the “Extend beyond” topic of this document]. (*)
    [Note: This appeal decision relates to “the rear wall”].
  • Where a proposed extension (under Class A) would be attached to an existing extension, then the phrase “[the] total enlargement” applies to the combined structure. [Note: In other words, the combined structure should be assessed against those limitations and conditions of Class A that apply to “[the] total enlargement”].
    [Note: Relates to A.1(ja) (with respect to A.1(j)) of the GPDO 2015].
  • Furthermore, the above conclusion still applies even if the existing extension was granted planning permission by the Council (i.e. rather than erected under government permitted development rights).
    [Note: Relates to A.1(ja) (with respect to A.1(j)) of the GPDO 2015].
  • Where a property has an existing (non-original) extension with a roof that joins onto the roof of the main house, then this existing extension does reduce the volume (i.e. “cubic content”) that remains under B.1(d) for further extensions. (*)
  • Furthermore, the above conclusion still applies even if the roof of the existing extension doesn’t contain any habitable rooms / rooflights / dormer windows / etc. (*)

August 2022 - Code a01453 (appeal allowed):

  • 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].
  • 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”].
  • 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].
  • 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].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that particular works do fall within the scope of Class B, without the Inspector referring to the issue of whether or not the works exceed what constitutes “the enlargement of a dwellinghouse consisting of an addition or alteration to its roof”. (*)
    [Note: The works include an “L”-shaped roof extension (or similar) that covers most (or all) of the roof of the rear projection].

August 2022 - Code a01452 (appeal dismissed):

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

July 2022 - Code a01451 (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.