Hi Helen, To be honest, I think the appeal decision APP/Y5420/X/11/2161573 is highly questionable. In my opinion, it's not at all clear why the Inspector concluded that the hip-to-gable roof extension would "extend beyond the plane" of the east roof slope (i.e. the principal elevation). Looking at the drawings, there doesn't appear to be anything unusual about this particular hip-to-gable roof extension. There have been many other appeal decisions where hip-to-gable roof extensions have been allowed, although because I thought this particular conclusion was relatively straightforward I haven't kept a record of which appeal decisions have supported it. The above appeal decision certainly wouldn't be the only example of a highly questionable appeal decision. For example: 1) In the appeal decision "APP/V5570/X/09/2118800", the Inspector concluded that an external spiral staircase, with typical dimensions, did not constitute "development" (i.e. on the basis that it did not materially affect the external appearance of the building). 2) In the appeal decision "APP/T0355/X/09/2103502", the Inspector concluded that it’s possible for an elevation to be both "the principal elevation" and "the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse". 3) In the appeal decision "APP/N5660/X/09/2109929", the Inspector concluded that timber and aluminium panels would be “of a similar appearance” to traditional materials (e.g. stock bricks, etc). 4) In the appeal decision "APP/L5810/X/08/2092809", the Inspector concluded that you can't issue an LDC for a ground floor extension and a (separate) roof extension, because both extensions have to be assessed against the same Class. 5) In the appeal decision "APP/X2220/X/11/2144338", the Inspector refused the proposed solar panels on the basis of a phrase in the legislation, without realising that the phrase had been deleted from the legislation more than 2 1/2 years earlier. I guess the above types of examples illustrate that there's always a potential danger where a conclusion is only supported by a single appeal decision! Thanks, Steve
