The "GPDO Part 1 (All Classes) - LDC Appeal Decisions" document has been updated to include 4 additional appeal decisions relating to householder permitted development legislation, for which the conclusions are as follows:

October 2017 - Code a00883 (appeal dismissed):

• The determination of “the principal elevation of the dwellinghouse” (i.e. where this phrase doesn’t include the term “original”) should be based on the property as it currently exists.
  [Quote: “Paragraph B.1(c) does not say “original” principal elevation; thus the principal elevation now includes the front facing walls of the side extension and the front facing plane of its roof. The principal elevation is now stepped. The DCLG Permitted development rights for householders Technical Guidance says a principal elevation could include more than one roof slope facing in the same direction for example where there is an L shaped frontage. That is the situation here. It goes on to say that in such cases all such roof slopes will form the principal elevation and the line for determining what constitutes “extends beyond the plane of any existing roof slope” will follow those slopes. The Appellant makes the point that the hip to gable is to be raised on the original flank wall of the dwellinghouse and not on the two storey side extension. Whilst that might be so, this additional sideways projection of the main roof effected by changing the hip to a gable would plainly extend beyond the plane of the existing front facing roof slope on the two storey side extension. That roof slope forms part of the principal elevation and the enlarged roof would extend beyond it. The limitation imposed by paragraph B.1(c) would not be met and thus the proposed development would not be permitted development, granted planning permission by way of the GPDO.”].
• More than one roof slope facing the same direction can form “the principal elevation”. (*)
• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a roof slope that’s significantly set back from a forward projection of the property does form part of “the principal elevation”.
  [Note: The roof slope is set back by approx 2.5m].
• In the first of the above diagrams, “Roof Extension A” does not comply with B.1(c). [Note: The diagrams are viewable within the “Extend beyond” topic of this document].
  [Note: The roof extension extends directly rearwards onto the corner part of the recessed front roof].
• If an applicant does not provide information as to whether a proposed development would comply with the conditions of a Class, then an LDC should be refused on this basis. (*)
• For example, if the applicant does not specify whether the new upper-floor side windows would be obscure-glazed and non-opening, then an LDC should be refused on this basis. (*)

October 2017 - Code a00882 (appeal dismissed):

• More than one wall facing the same direction can form “the principal elevation” (in the case where the elevation is staggered horizontally). (*)
• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a roof slope that’s significantly set back from a forward projection of the property does form part of “the principal elevation”.
  [Note: The roof slope is set back by approx 3.4m].
• In the first of the above diagrams, “Roof Extension A” does not comply with B.1(c). [Note: The diagrams are viewable within the “Extend beyond” topic of this document].
  [Note: The roof extension extends directly rearwards onto the corner part of the recessed front roof].

October 2017 - Code a00881 (appeal dismissed):

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

October 2017 - Code a00880 (split decision):

• [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.