“Part 1 of the GPDO – GENERAL Appeal Decisions” – 4 additional appeal decisions (total = 1,590) …

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:

October 2022 - Code a01484 (appeal allowed):

  • Where an existing (non-original) extension has reduced the volume (i.e. “cubic content”) that remains under B.1(d) for further extensions, and (part of) this existing extension is removed, then this previously used volume is regained. (*)
    [Note: The crown roof (which the Inspector refers to as a “hipped roof”) of the existing two-storey side extension would be replaced with a flat roof as part of the current works].
    [Quote: “The property is a semi-detached dwelling with a hipped main roof and a hipped roof on its two-storey side extension. The development would consist of a dormer extension to the rear of the roof and also the building up of the side gable resulting in the roof becoming gabled rather than hipped. In addition, the hipped roof of the side extension would be removed and replaced with a flat roof. The Council accepts that the loft conversion, when looked at in isolation, would not exceed 50 cubic metres. However, the Council argues that it would not be PD because the existing roof on the side extension should be added to this figure, as it is not part of the original roof space. However, I do not accept the Council’s position in this respect. The proposed development is put forward as a single project and must be considered as a whole. As the side extension roof would be removed as part of the overall operation, it cannot form part of the calculation of the resulting roof space as it would no longer exist. i.e., the resulting roof space would not exceed the cubic content of the original roof space by more than 50 cubic metres.”].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that particular works should be assessed against Class B (i.e. rather than Classes A or C).
    [Note: The works include the replacement of the crown roof of an existing two-storey side extension with a flat roof].

October 2022 - Code a01483 (appeal dismissed):

  • More than one wall facing the same direction can form “the rear wall” (in the case where the elevation is staggered horizontally). (*)
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a relatively short width of wall does form part of “the rear wall”. (*)
    [Note: The wall is two-storey, and has width approx 1.0m].
  • In the second of the above diagrams, “Extension D” is subject to the “extend beyond” type restrictions in relation to “Wall 2”. [Note: The diagrams are viewable within the “Extend beyond” topic of this document].
    [Note: This appeal decision relates to “the rear wall”].
  • It’s incorrect to take the approach that an extension must be either a “side extension” or a “rear extension”, and then to apply either A.1(j) or A.1(f)/A.1(g)/A.1(h) respectively. Where an extension extends beyond both an original side wall and an original rear wall, then both A.1(j) and A.1(f)/A.1(g)/A.1(h) are applicable.
  • 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.
    [Quote: “The appellant considers that the proposed extension complies with the Technical Guidance as it relates to rear and side extensions including a diagram showing an extension 6m in depth in a similar position as that proposed. However, the 6m dimension in that case is only permitted development where householders wishing to build such an extension to a semi-detached house have sought and obtained prior approval from the Council. Otherwise, the proposed extension is restricted to 3m. The appellant has submitted a copy of a decision notice dated 3 May 2022 which he has received from the Council. This notice confirms that Prior Approval is not required for a ground floor extension to be constructed at [the application site]. However, this decision had not been made when the appeal scheme was determined by the Council. Furthermore, there is limited information before me in respect of the application submission in that case. For those reasons this decision does not undermine my conclusion that the extension which is the subject of the appeal does not amount to permitted development."].

October 2022 - Code a01482 (appeal dismissed):

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

October 2022 - Code a01481 (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.