“Part 1 of the GPDO – GENERAL Appeal Decisions” – 3 additional appeal decisions (total = 1,604) …

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:

November 2022 - Code a01498 (appeal dismissed):

  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that the following materials are not “of a similar appearance” to one-another:
    - grey slates versus dark-brown tiles (with a “double Roman” profile).
    [Note: On the roof of a single storey rear extension versus on the roof of the main house (respectively)].
  • The conditions about materials (i.e. A.3(a) and B.2(a)) do affect the shape or size of windows. (*)
    [Note: The wall of the single storey extension would be mostly glazed, containing a set of folding/sliding glazed doors].
    [Quote: “In addition, the rear elevation of the extension features a wide expanse of glazed bifold doors. The TG advises that to comply with the condition in paragraph A.3(a), the windows in an extension should give a similar visual appearance to those in the existing dwelling, for example in terms of their overall shape, and the colour and size of the frames. The substantial size and area of glazing in the bifold doors and the distances between the frame edges would not reflect the more modest proportions of the dwelling’s existing windows, either in the rear elevation or elsewhere. As a result, the bifold doors differ in terms of their visual appearance from the windows in the existing dwelling. Therefore, on the balance of probability, both in respect of the roof materials and windows, the proposal does not comply with the condition in paragraph A.3 (a).”].
  • The conditions about materials (i.e. A.3(a) and B.2(a)) do affect the extent to which an elevation is glazed. (*)
    [Note: This appeal decision implies (rather than states) this conclusion].
    [Note: The wall of the single storey extension would be mostly glazed, containing a set of folding/sliding glazed doors].
    [Quote: “In addition, the rear elevation of the extension features a wide expanse of glazed bifold doors. The TG advises that to comply with the condition in paragraph A.3(a), the windows in an extension should give a similar visual appearance to those in the existing dwelling, for example in terms of their overall shape, and the colour and size of the frames. The substantial size and area of glazing in the bifold doors and the distances between the frame edges would not reflect the more modest proportions of the dwelling’s existing windows, either in the rear elevation or elsewhere. As a result, the bifold doors differ in terms of their visual appearance from the windows in the existing dwelling. Therefore, on the balance of probability, both in respect of the roof materials and windows, the proposal does not comply with the condition in paragraph A.3 (a).”].

November 2022 - Code a01497 (appeal dismissed):

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

November 2022 - Code a01496 (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.