Re: GPDO - Part 1 - Appeal Decision Summaries - Version 13.0

Joined
12 May 2010
Messages
35
Reaction score
11
Location
London
Country
United Kingdom
Hi all,

Please find below a link to the latest version of my "Part 1 - Appeal Decision Summaries" document (Version 13.0, updated 19/07/2010):

http://www.planningjungle.com/GPDO ... Appeal Decision Summaries - Version 13.0.doc

The idea of this document is to provide a summary of appeal decisions that are relevant to the amended Part 1 of the GPDO. The appeal decisions themselves, along with many of the plans, are available on the following website …

www.planningjungle.com
www.planningjungle.com/appeal_decisions.shtml

Since the last version of this document, 6 appeal decisions have been added, and below I've listed the main conclusions from these new appeals. Please note that some of these conclusions (as marked in green) contradict conclusions from other appeal decisions. For such cases, please refer to the "Contents" section of the attached document, which lists how many appeals there have been for and against each conclusion.

If you have any comments, criticisms, or suggestions for this document, please feel free to email me. Please note that I produce this document in my own time, and therefore some of the summaries are not as comprehensive as I would like. If you come across an appeal decision that I have missed, or if you believe that any of the summaries in this document contain a misinterpretation or a significant omission, please let me know.

Thanks,
Steve

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Below is a list of conclusions from appeal decisions added since the previous version of this document:

· The “principal elevation” is not necessarily the elevation that fronts a highway.
[Relevant to: “Principal Elevation”, A.1(d), B.1(b), E.1(b), F.1, G.1(b)].

· The principal elevation is not necessarily the elevation that contains the main entrance.
[Relevant to: “Principal Elevation”, A.1(d), B.1(b), E.1(b), F.1, G.1(b)].

· Where the principal elevation does not front a highway, the amount by which a Class A extension can extend beyond the principal elevation is not directly* restricted by any limitation.
(*i.e. other than the general restriction of A.1(a) that prevents more than 50% of the original garden being covered by buildings).

[Relevant to: “Principal Elevation”, A.1(d)].

· For the purposes of Class A, part A.1(h), “width” should be measured in the direction parallel with the line of the principal elevation. For example, if the principal elevation is the south elevation, then width should be measured from west to east, and not from north to south.
[Relevant to: A.1(h)].

· The height of a structure should be measured from the level of the highest part of the surface of the ground adjacent to the structure.
[Relevant to: “Height”, A.1(b), A.1(c), A.1(e), A.1(g), A.1(h), B.1(a), E.1(d), E.1(e), G.1(a), H.1(d), I].

· Furthermore, when measuring the height of a structure, “ground level" should be taken to be natural ground level, and therefore excludes the level of any ground that has been artificially raised or lowered.
[Relevant to: “Height”, A.1(b), A.1(c), A.1(e), A.1(g), A.1(h), B.1(a), E.1(d), E.1(e), G.1(a), H.1(d), I].

· Where parts of a proposed outbuilding are within 2m of a boundary, the 2.5m height limit applies only to those parts within 2m of the boundary.
[Note: This would appear to contradict at least one other appeal decision – for further information see the entry in the “Contents” section on “E.1(d)”]
[Relevant to: A.1(g), E.1(d)].

· The phrase “dual-pitched roof” applies not just to a roof with a ridge-line with a pitched roof on either side and gable ends (i.e. where the roof has 2 slopes), but also in the case where one or both of the ends are hipped ends (i.e. where the roof has 3 or 4 slopes).
[Relevant to: E.1(d)].

· Where a property has an original rear projection, then there will be more than one wall that constitutes “the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse” for the purposes of Class A, part A.1(e). This means that where the original rear elevation of a property is stepped, the 3m/4m rear projection limit will be similarly stepped.
[Note: This would appear to contradict at least one other appeal decision – for further information see the entry in the “Contents” section on “The rear wall of the original dwellinghouse”].
[Relevant to: “The rear wall of the original dwellinghouse”, A.1(e), A.1(f), A.2(c)].

· Where a property has an original rear projection, then there will be more than one wall that constitutes “the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse” for the purposes of Class A, part A.1(e). This means that where the original rear elevation of a property is stepped, the 3m/4m rear projection limit will be similarly stepped.
[Note: This would appear to contradict at least one other appeal decision – for further information see the entry in the “Contents” section on “The rear wall of the original dwellinghouse”].
[Relevant to: “The rear wall of the original dwellinghouse”, A.1(e), A.1(f), A.2(c)].

· The side wall of an original rear projection (i.e. the side wall facing the infill area) is “a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse” for the purposes of the GPDO.
[Note: This would appear to contradict at least one other appeal decision – for further information see the entry in the “Contents” section on “A side elevation of the original dwellinghouse”].
[Relevant to: “A side elevation of the original dwellinghouse”, A.1(d), A.1(h), A.2(b), A.3(b), B.2(c), C.2, E.3, G.1(b)].

· A property can have more than one wall that constitutes “a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse” for the purposes of the GPDO.
[Relevant to: “A side elevation of the original dwellinghouse”, A.1(d), A.1(h), A.2(b), A.3(b), B.2(c), C.2, E.3, G.1(b)].

· For example, an extension to the side of an original rear projection within a conservation area (or other article 1(5) land) is not permitted development.
[Note: This would appear to contradict at least one other appeal decision – for further information see the entry in the “Contents” section on “A side elevation of the original dwellinghouse”].[Relevant to: “A side elevation of the original dwellinghouse”, A.1(d), A.1(h), A.2(b), A.3(b), B.2(c), C.2, E.3, G.1(b)].

· It is incorrect to take the approach that an extension must either be a “rear extension” or “side extension”, and then to apply either A.1(e)/(f) or A.1(h) respectively. Where an extension would extend beyond both an original rear wall and an original side elevation, then both A.1(e)/(f) and A.1(h) will be applicable.
[Relevant to: “Interaction between A.1(e)/(f) and A.1(h)”, A.1(e), A.1(f), A.1(h)].

· Where a previous extension has been added to an original wall or elevation, and then a proposed new extension would be added to the previous extension (i.e. so that the proposed new extension would not in itself be directly attached to the original wall or elevation), then the proposed new extension would still “extend beyond” that original wall or elevation (and therefore the proposed new extension would still be subject to those limitations that apply where an extension would “extend beyond” an original wall or elevation).
[Relevant to: “General”, A.1(d), A.1(e), A.1(f), A.1(h), A.2(b), A.2(c), B.1(b)].

· The use of felt (or similar) for the flat roof of a dormer (assuming that the visibility of the roof would be limited) would not be contrary to Class B, part B.2(a). The Inspector indicates (or implies) that the felt would not need to have a similar colour to the materials on the existing house.
[Note: This would appear to contradict at least one other appeal decision – for further information see the entry in the “Contents” section on “B.2(a)”]
[Relevant to: A.3(a), B.2(a)].

· A “Juliette balcony” is not a “balcony” for the purposes of the GPDO, and therefore is permitted development.
[Relevant to: A.1(i), B.1(d), E.1(g)].

· Where the main rear wall of an extension would comply with the 3m/4m rear projection limit of Class A, part A.1(e), but the eaves / guttering / soffit / fascia of the extension would project slightly past this line, then this would still be permitted development.
[Relevant to: A.1(e)].

· For the purposes of the 20cm set back, the term “eaves” applies just to the outer edge of the section of the roof overhanging the wall. As such, the 20cm set back should be measured from the outer edge of the sloping roof.
[Note: This would appear to contradict at least one other appeal decision – for further information see the entry in the “Contents” section on “B.2(b)”].
[Relevant to: B.2(b)].

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Sponsored Links

DIYnot Local

Staff member

If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.

Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.


Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local

 
Back
Top