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 2020 - Code a01237 (appeal dismissed):

• The replacement of the roof of the main house should be assessed against Class C (i.e. rather than Classes A or B). (*)
• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that particular works do not fall within the scope of Class C, on the basis that the works exceed what constitutes “any other alteration to the roof of a dwellinghouse”.
  [Note: The works include a complete new roof superstructure].
  [Quote: “The proposed elevations demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that the finished ridge and eaves height would be no higher than the original thatched roof, and the roof pitch would be the same. [...] However, and as confirmed by the appellant, the proposal necessitates a complete new roof superstructure, and this appears to me to be an integral structural part of the proposal in order to facilitate the change to a tiled roof, as opposed merely being internal works. The appellant later states the replacement works would relate to approximately 50% of the total roof area of the original house, although there is little evidence to demonstrate this quantification on the balance of probabilities, which casts doubt in my mind. Class C of the GPDO is restricted to an alteration/s to the roof a dwellinghouse. However, the proposal amounts to a new roof, or substantive new roof, to the main part of the dwelling, as opposed simply just an alteration to it. This accordingly casts significant doubt in my mind that the proposal would be permitted development for the purposes of Class C of the GPDO. Moreover, as can be seen in the Government’s technical guidance concerning permitted development rights, alterations under Class C of the GPDO would, for example, cover the installation of roof lights/windows. This adds further weight against the proposal being permitted development, given the apparent scope of Class C of the GPDO, when compared against the quantum of development proposed.”].
• In particular, in reaching the above conclusion, the Inspector noted that the works involve the substantial removal and rebuilding of the roof.
  [Note: The works include a complete new roof superstructure].
  [Quote: “... the proposal amounts to a new roof, or substantive new roof, to the main part of the dwelling ...”].

October 2020 - Code a01236 (3 x appeal dismissed):

• 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: “Whilst there is some dispute as to the extent of transgressions of Class E, it is clear from the evidence that the appellant has altered the buildings in an effort to ensure that they comply with Permitted Development (PD) rights. Indeed, the appellant acknowledges that there has been some exceedance of the Class E limitations as a consequence of the connectivity between Buildings A and D, and Buildings D and E. I do not consider such exceedances to be immaterial. PD rights only apply when the development fully accords with the limitations set out in the Order. They cannot be claimed retrospectively by the removal of an element so as to return the residual development to the permitted tolerance. Whilst the Council liaised with the appellant prior to the submission of the enforcement notice in an effort to remedy exceedances, this does not alter the fact that since the outbuildings were in breach of limitations set out in Class E, and not insignificantly so, and are therefore not lawful. As a consequence, the appeal under ground (c) must fail.”].

October 2020 - Code a01235 (appeal dismissed):

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

October 2020 - Code a01234 (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.