The "GPDO Part 1 (All Classes) - LDC 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:

May 2021 - Code a01295 (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 an “L”-shaped roof extension (or similar) that covers most (or all) of the roof of the rear projection].
  [Quote: “The works involved would be significant and, in my view, would entail the removal and remodelling of most of the roof during construction. This is apparent from the information shown on the existing and proposed roof plans and the proposed section drawing. Having regard to the details on the drawings, it is my view that around three quarters of the original roof would be removed. [...] There are no detailed construction drawings to show what would be retained of the original roof. However, it is obvious, given the extent of the proposed alterations, that there would be a significant amount of demolition and reconstruction in respect of more than half of the roof area. As a matter of fact and degree, I find the proposed development would not therefore amount to either an “addition” or “alteration” to the roof as a substantial part of the original roof structure would not remain. As such, the development would not be lawful as it would not be PD.”].
• 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 an “L”-shaped roof extension (or similar) that covers most (or all) of the roof of the rear projection].
  [Quote: “... it is obvious, given the extent of the proposed alterations, that there would be a significant amount of demolition and reconstruction in respect of more than half of the roof area.”].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular roof extension does not constitute a “hip-to-gable enlargement” for the purposes of B.2(b). (*)
  [Note: The resulting roof is a dormer / first floor extension, which would be situated on the hipped roof of the existing single storey rear projection].
  [Quote: “If the “dormer” (the appellant’s description for the first floor extension) was only formed on the inside roof slope of the existing extended hipped element over the rear ground floor bedroom and bathroom, and the hipped end was extended to become a gable end (gable No 3), then there would only be a need to comply with a 0.2m set back from the eaves on the inside roof slope. However, the appellant proposes to erect a first floor extension over the ground floor rear bedroom and bathroom. The existing hipped roof over this area currently has eaves on all three sides. The entire existing roof over this area would be removed so there would be no hip-to-gable alteration and the end of the hipped roof would not be replaced with gable end No 3. Instead, the appellant proposes a small flat roof area over the ground floor rear bedroom. The effect of the condition in paragraph B.2 of Class B is that where there is no hip-to-gable alteration, the eaves of the original roof are required to be maintained or reinstated. The appellant’s drawings do not show that this would be the case and they also do not show that the proposed extension over the ground floor rear bedroom and bathroom would be set back 0.2m from all of the eaves. This element of the proposed development would therefore not comply with the conditions referred to in Class B.”].

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.