The "GPDO Part 1 (All Classes) - LDC Appeal Decisions" document has been updated to include 5 additional appeal decisions relating to householder permitted development legislation, for which the conclusions are as follows:

April 2017 - Code a00821 (appeal dismissed):

• Whether works are permitted development depends on whether the works comply with the version of the GPDO that was in force on the date the works are substantially completed. (*)
  [Quote: “Although the LDC application is dated 3 November 2016 the plans are dated March 2014 and the Appellant says that the loft conversion was substantially completed by September 2014. The LDC appeal has to be determined on the basis of the GPDO in force at the time the development was substantially completed which in this case was the 1995 GPDO as amended.”].
• The term “eaves” does apply to the edge of a flat roof. (*)
• For the purposes of the post-06/04/2014 versions of B.2(b), where a property has an original rear projection with a flat roof, which is at a (slightly) lower level than the eaves of the main rear roof, then B.2(b) would not allow a roof extension that extends from the main rear roof onto the flat roof of the original rear projection. [Note: The roof extension, for the whole of its width, would extend across the line of the original rear eaves]. (*)
• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular roof extension would not constitute “an enlargement which joins the original roof to the roof of a rear or side extension” for the purposes of B.2(b).
  [Note: Proposed rear dormer would join the main rear roof onto the flat roof of the original two-storey rear projection].
• In the second of the above diagrams, (at least) part of “Roof Extension D” “extends beyond” the outside face of “Wall 1”. [Note: In other words, “Roof Extension D” would not comply with B.2(b)(ii)]. [Note: The diagrams are viewable within the “Extend beyond” topic of this document].
• Where a property has a secondary roof that’s slightly lower than the main roof, then an extension on top of this secondary roof should be assessed against Class A and Class B. (*)
  [Note: Roof of original two-storey rear projection on two-storey house].

April 2017 - Code a00820 (appeal dismissed):

• The side wall of an original (part-width) rear projection (i.e. the side wall facing the infill area) is “a wall forming a side elevation”. (*)
  [Note: The original (part-width) rear projection is one-and-a-half-storey].
• For example, an extension to the side of an original (part-width) rear projection where the extension has a width greater than half the width of the original house is not permitted development. (*)

April 2017 - Code a00819 (appeal dismissed):

• [Note: To view these conclusions, please log onto the website as a member].

April 2017 - Code a00818 (appeal allowed):

• [Note: To view these conclusions, please log onto the website as a member].

April 2017 - Code a00817 (appeal dismissed):

• [Note: To view these conclusions, please log onto the website as a member].

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.