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 2019 - Code a01079 (appeal allowed):

• This appeal decision provides an example of the types of factors that should be taken into consideration when determining which elevation is “the principal elevation”.
• The determination of “the principal elevation of the original dwellinghouse” should be based on the property as it existed on 01/07/1948 or, if built after that date, as so built. (*)
  [Quote: “In the first instance, the principal elevation relates to the original dwelling house. It would appear that the Council have relied upon the position of the entrance door, lounge window and glazed doors fronting the highway to form their view that the principal elevation is to the south. However, notwithstanding that the highway is some distance away, the lounge fenestration is not particularly distinctive and is on a par with the other fenestration in the property. The entrance door is also not particularly prominent being within a recessed area. Having regard to the history of the development of the property, it is my view that the roof is the main architectural feature and informs my conclusion that the principal elevation is to the east.”].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular elevation does not “front” a highway, noting that the elevation and the highway are separated either by a significant distance or by land in different ownership or use. (*)
  [Note: Separated by a distance of more than 200m].

October 2019 - Code a01078 (appeal dismissed):

• 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 B (i.e. rather than Class A). (*)
  [Note: The secondary roof is the lower and upper parts of a cat-slide roof on a two-storey house].
  [Note: The works involve increasing the height of the rear wall of the original one-and-a-half-storey rear projection].
• 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 roof extension would join the lower and upper parts of a cat-slide roof (i.e. a single original roof that already joins the main house onto the original one-and-a-half-storey rear projection)].
• 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].

October 2019 - Code a01077 (appeal allowed):

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

October 2019 - Code a01076 (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.