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 2018 - Code a00981 (appeal dismissed):

• Permitted development rights do not apply where the existing building or use is unlawful.
  [Quote: “Therefore the existing main roof dormer is, and would remain, constructed unlawfully as a breach of planning control. With the above in mind Article 3 of the GPDO states: - Permitted development (5) The permission granted by Schedule 2 does not apply if— (a) in the case of permission granted in connection with an existing building, the building operations involved in the construction of that building are unlawful; Therefore, given the above restriction of Article 3, the proposed extension of the unlawful existing rear dormer would not benefit from planning permission granted for Class B development.”].
• Where works exceed the tolerances of permitted development and have been substantially completed (i.e. unlawfully), then it is not possible to alter the works so that they become permitted development. (*)
  [Quote: “However, putting those factors to one side, and as explained previously within the ground (c) appeal of Appeal A, the existing roof dormer as constructed is not permitted development and is a breach of planning control. Also, any alterations to it in order to mirror Class B development would not render it as permitted development. Therefore the existing main roof dormer is, and would remain, constructed unlawfully as a breach of planning control.”].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that particular works do not fall within the scope of Class B, on the basis that the works exceed what constitutes “the enlargement of a dwellinghouse consisting of an addition or alteration to its roof”. (*)
  [Note: The works include alterations to the existing raised parapet walls].
  [Quote: “With regard to the appellant’s second line of argument that the dormer has in any event been constructed as permitted development, I find that not to be the case. The fire walls are not part of the roof structure. Their building up and incorporation into the dormer takes the development outside of Class B.”].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector did not accept the applicant’s argument that a 20cm set back isn’t “practicable”. (*)
  [Note: The rear dormer is not set back from the original rear eaves].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when assessing whether a 20cm set back is “practicable”, gave limited weight to the fact that the 20cm set back would result in reduced internal floor space. (*)

September 2018 - Code a00980 (appeal dismissed):

• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that two sets of works were undertaken as a single operation (i.e. rather than as separate operations).
  [Conclusion: Rear dormer single operation with hip-to-gable roof extension].
• This appeal decision states, or implies, that when assessing whether two sets of works were undertaken as a single operation (or separate operations), it is a material factor as to whether one set of works was substantially completed before the other set of works was started.
• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that the following materials are not “of a similar appearance” to one-another:
  - timber or composite cladding versus red tiles.
  [Note: On a new gable end and the face and cheeks of a rear dormer versus on the roof of the main house (respectively)].

September 2018 - Code a00979 (appeal allowed):

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

September 2018 - Code a00978 (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.