“GPDO Part 1 (All Classes) – LDC Appeal Decisions” – 3 additional appeal decisions (total = 1,617) …

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

January 2023 - Code a01511 (appeal dismissed):

  • This appeal decision provides an example of where a property has an existing extension, and the Inspector concluded that the phrase “the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse” does apply to the subsequent alteration of this existing extension. [Note: In other words, the alteration of this existing extension should be assessed against those limitations and conditions of Class A that apply to “the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse”].
    [Note: The works would alter an existing single storey side extension (conservatory) by replacing the glazed upper parts of its walls with blockwork, by replacing its glazed mono-pitched roof with a solid flat roof (which would be at least 0.1m higher at the eaves), by replacing a door with a window, and by installing a new door and window].
    [Note: The Inspector actually concludes that it’s not been demonstrated that the works are not an “enlargement”].
    [Quote: “The existing structure has a slightly sloping roof away from the main dwelling. It is shown on an annotated photograph as being 2.1m high at the point furthest from the main dwelling, although measured not from the ground level but from the top of a darker brick course above ground level but below the entrance door. The plan of the proposed structure (plan 26/005) is annotated to say its height, which is to constitute a flat insulated roof rather than the existing sloped glazing, is to be 2.2m. Again this is not from ground level but from a level marked ‘FFL’ (perhaps meaning finished floor level) which I take to be commensurate with the top of the darker brick course. The plan is evidently not to scale, because when measured against the 4.5m width (assuming that is accurately depicted) the actual height shown on the plan is some 2.5m. The internal height is said to be 1.95m but is also depicted as being 85% of the external height of 2.2m, which is inaccurate. No plan of the elevation set against the main dwelling has been provided, meaning I am unable to ascertain from the plans the relationship of the proposed flat roof with the existing eaves or side wall. Having regard to all these uncertainties, I am unable to conclude that the proposal would not, on the balance of probability, result in an enlargement to the dwellinghouse.”].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that the following materials are not “of a similar appearance” to one-another:
    - blockwork versus red bricks.
    [Note: On the walls of a single storey side extension versus on the walls of the main house (respectively)].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that the following materials are not “of a similar appearance” to one-another:
    - render versus red bricks.
    [Note: On the walls of a single storey side extension versus on the walls of the main house (respectively)].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular structure does constitute a “conservatory” for the purposes of A.3(a).
    [Note: This appeal decision implies (rather than states) this conclusion].
    [Note: For the existing side extension, the lower parts of the walls are brick (for approx 40% of their height), the upper parts of the walls are fully glazed (excluding frames) (for approx 60% of their height), and the mono-pitched roof is fully glazed (excluding frames)].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular structure does not constitute a “conservatory” for the purposes of A.3(a).
    [Note: For the proposed side extension, the lower parts of the walls are brick (for approx 40% of their height), the upper parts of the walls are blockwork (excluding 2 x windows and a partly glazed door) (for approx 60% of their height), and the flat roof is solid].
    [Quote: “Although the condition provides an exception to the need for matching materials in the construction of a conservatory, what is proposed here would remove most of the present glazing and replace it with solid walls and roof. Differing from the plans, the exterior of the extension has now been fully rendered. Either way, the works would change the nature of the structure from what was a conservatory, so that description of it would no longer be apt. Therefore the requirement to achieve materials of a similar appearance applies, and this is not proposed here (and nor has it been achieved by what has actually taken place). Therefore the construction fails to comply with the condition imposed by paragraph A.3(a).”].

December 2022 - Code a01510 (appeal dismissed):

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

December 2022 - Code a01509 (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.