The "GPDO Part 1 (All Classes) - LDC Appeal Decisions" document has been updated to include 7 additional appeal decisions relating to householder permitted development legislation, for which the conclusions are as follows:

July 2018 - Code a00955 (appeal dismissed):

• A C4 house in multiple occupation (i.e. a “small HMO”) does benefit from Part 1 of the GPDO. (*)
  [Quote: “The appellant maintains that the property was in use as a small house in multiple occupation (HMO) within Class C4 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, as amended (the UCO), such that it would benefit from permitted development rights under Class A of Part 1 of the GPDO. If the property was used in that manner, there is no dispute between the parties that it would have benefitted from permitted development rights, or that the proposed extension would comply with the limitations and conditions at paragraphs A.1 to A.3 of Part 1. I have no reason to reach a different conclusion on those matters and am satisfied that is the correct position. Thus, if the property was used in the manner suggested by the appellant it follows that the extension could lawfully be erected by taking advantage of permitted development rights.”].
• A sui generis house in multiple occupation (i.e. a “large HMO”) can benefit from Part 1 of the GPDO. (*)
  [Quote: “In refusing the application the Council appears to have made the automatic assumption that a large HMO would not benefit from permitted development rights. However, neither party has commented on that matter in any detail. Occupation by more than six individuals would take the use of the property outside the definition of a dwellinghouse within Classes C3 and C4 of the UCO. It would amount to a sui generis use but it does not automatically follow that a material change of use would have occurred or that it would not be a “dwellinghouse” for the purposes of the GPDO. That would be a matter of fact and degree depending upon how the property was laid out and occupied, how many residents lived there and what the relationship between those residents was. Due to the lack of information before me I am unable to make a meaningful assessment on any of those matters.”].
• For an application under section 192 (proposed), the (hypothetical) question is whether the works would be lawful if begun at the time of the application. (*)
• Permitted development rights do not apply where the existing building or use is unlawful.
  [Quote: “In addition, under the terms of Article 3(5)(b) of the GPDO any permission granted by Schedule 2 of the order does not apply if the existing use of the building was unlawful. In other words, if the property was in use as a large HMO, and that use was unauthorised, permitted development rights would not apply.”].

July 2018 - Code a00954 (appeal dismissed):

• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular roof extension does 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: The proposed rear dormer would join the main rear roof onto the pitched roof of the original two-storey rear projection].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector did accept the applicant’s argument that a 20cm set back isn’t “practicable”. (*)
  [Note: The “L”-shaped roof extension (or similar) extends across the original rear eaves].
• For the purposes of the post-06/04/2014 version(s) of B.2(b), where the original eaves have been removed and not reinstated, then it is not possible to comply with B.2(b)(i)(aa). [Note: This conclusion assumes that the roof extension does not fall within the exceptions set out by B.2(b)(i)].
  [Note: The original eaves would be removed as part of the current works].
• In the second of the above diagrams, (at least) part of “Roof Extension D” “extends beyond” the outside face of “Wall 1” (i.e. for the purposes of B.2(b)(ii)). [Note: The diagrams are viewable within the “Extend beyond” topic of this document].
  [Conclusion: The roof extension does not comply with B.2(b)(ii) for the above reason].
• For the purposes of the post-06/04/2014 version(s) of Part 1 of the GPDO, where a property has an original rear projection with a side-facing pitched roof, part of which is lower than the main rear roof, then an “L”-shaped roof extension (or similar) that extends from the main rear roof onto the side roof of the original rear projection is not permitted development. [Note: The roof extension, for part of its (rearmost) width, extends across the original rear eaves]. (*)
  [Conclusion: The works are contrary to B.2(b)(i)(aa) and B.2(b)(ii), noting that the roof extension does not constitute “an enlargement which joins the original roof to the roof of a rear or side extension”].
• Where an application under section 192 (proposed) is made for a roof extension that’s contrary to Class B and a roof alteration that complies with Class C, then this appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector concluded that an LDC should be refused with respect to both the roof extension and the roof alteration. [Note: In other words, the Inspector did not issue a split decision]. (*)
  [Note: The Inspector dismissed the appeal with respect to “roof extensions to the rear and rear addition, together with the installation of 2 front rooflights”].
  [Quote: “Rooflights inserted in roof slopes, and windows to side elevations, taken in isolation are capable of being PD subject to the limitations and conditions at C.1 and C.2 respectively. However, since the roof lights and windows proposed are all integral to the proposed development which, given its internal configurations, would be carried out as a single operation, they form part of the same single development. For the reasons I have set out earlier the proposed development is not PD. Hence no part of the proposed development would be PD under Class C.”].

July 2018 - Code a00953 (appeal dismissed):

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

July 2018 - Code a00952 (appeal allowed):

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

July 2018 - Code a00951 (appeal dismissed):

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

July 2018 - Code a00950 (appeal allowed):

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

June 2018 - Code a00949 (appeal allowed):

• [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.