“GPDO Part 1 (All Classes) – LDC Appeal Decisions” – 1 additional appeal decision (total = 1,717) …

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:

October 2023 - Code a01611 (appeal allowed):

  • 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 roof of a non-original single storey rear extension on a single storey house].
    [Note: The main roof would be extended and the secondary roof would be altered from a hipped roof to a flat roof].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that particular works do fall within the scope of Class B, on the basis that the works do not exceed what constitutes “the enlargement of a dwellinghouse consisting of an addition or alteration to its roof”. (*)
    [Note: The works include a hip-to-gable roof extension (to the main side roof), the replacement of the hipped roof of the existing single storey rear extension with a flat roof, and a rear dormer (to the main rear roof)].
    [Quote: “The submitted plans show there would have to be substantial changes to the existing roof to provide the extra living accommodation in the roof space and ensure the resulting roof space would not exceed the cubic content of the original roof space by more than 50 cubic metres. The Council’s concern is removal of the roof would mean that very little of the roof structure would remain to be altered or added to. The Council was of the view that the proposal required a rebuild of the roof, not an alteration or enlargement. This gives rise to whether the works involved in the proposed enlargement can be regarded, as a matter of fact and degree, as an ‘addition or alteration’ to the roof for the purposes of Class B. By reference to comparison plans the appellant accepted that a significant amount of the external roof at the rear, and part of the side, would be extended/replaced. However, the appellant maintained the entire front part of the existing roof would remain unaltered and hence the proposal would amount to an alteration to the existing roof. [...] The current proposal involves a hip to gable enlargement to extend a previous loft conversion. The appeal statement outlined the process - the original ridge and structural supports would be retained, the side rafters removed, utilising the main supports. The front roof slope and projecting roof would not be altered, except to install the two front rooflights. However, a schedule of works was not provided by the appellant. The proposed loft space extension would involve a substantial change to the existing roof, including the removal of the roof over the rear extension and back of the original bungalow. However, the baseline position is the existing roof and not the original roof before the construction of the extension. Elements of the existing roof would remain. As a matter of fact and degree the proposed loft conversion would fall within the scope of Class B, provided that the indicated progression of works was followed.”].
  • If an applicant does not provide information as to whether a proposed development would comply with the conditions of a Class, then an LDC should be refused on this basis. (*)
  • For example, if the applicant does not specify whether the new upper-floor side windows would be obscure-glazed and non-opening, then an LDC should be refused on this basis. (*)


  • 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.