“Part 1 of the GPDO – GENERAL Appeal Decisions” – 1 additional appeal decision (total = 1,383) …

The Part 1 of the GPDO - GENERAL Appeal Decisions document has been updated to include 1 additional appeal decision relating to householder permitted development legislation, for which the conclusions are as follows:

February 2021 - Code a01277 (appeal dismissed):

  • 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 2 x hip-to-gable roof extensions and a rear dormer].
    [Quote: “In this case “addition”, “alteration” or “other alteration” are still not defined in the 2015 GPDO and it therefore follows whether the proposal amounts to an “addition”, “alteration” or “other alteration” is a matter of fact and degree. Having regard to the details on the drawings, it is my view that around three quarters of the original roof would be removed. The appellant’s response to the Council’s case is to submit what is referred to as an “indicative plan of retained structure”. This comprises the same drawing No 006/130-WO2 as before but with markings roughly hatching the edges of the main roof and the front and rear hip projections to indicate that these areas would be retained. There are no detailed construction drawings to demonstrate the extent of what would be retained. In reality, I find it is more than likely that the ends of the rafters on the edge of the roof, as shown in the hatched area on the plan, would not be retained as most of them would be lying in the wrong direction to serve the new roof. I also find that the front and rear hipped projections amount to secondary features in comparison to the size of the main roof. As a matter of fact and degree I find the proposed development would not therefore amount to either an “addition”, “alteration” or “other alteration” to the roof as a substantial part of the original roof structure would not remain. [...] I find, for the reasons given above, that the proposed development would not be an addition, alteration or other alteration to the roof of the dwelling for the purposes of Classes B and C of the GPDO. As such, the conditions and limitations of those classes do not fall to be considered.”].
  • 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 2 x hip-to-gable roof extensions and a rear dormer].
    [Quote: “The works involved would be significant and, in my view, would entail the removal and remodelling of most of the roof during construction.”].


  • To view the conclusions, full summaries, and decision notices for any of the above appeals, please view the Part 1 of the GPDO - GENERAL Appeal Decisions document. As a member of the Planning Jungle website, you can view the decision notices for all of the appeals within the above document 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.