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:

June 2024 - Code a01702 (appeal allowed):

• A C4 house in multiple occupation (i.e. a “small HMO”) does benefit from Part 1 of the GPDO. (*)
  [Quote: “Schedule 2, Part 1, Class B of the GPDO states that the enlargement of a dwellinghouse consisting of an addition or alteration to its roof is permitted development. Other alterations to the roof of a dwellinghouse are permitted by Class C of the same Part. Where a building is used as an HMO for up to six residents, the use falls within use class C4 of Schedule 1 to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (the UCO) and the building is taken to be a dwellinghouse for the purposes of Classes B and C.”].
• A flat does not benefit from Part 1 of the GPDO.
• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular property is a “dwellinghouse”, rather than a “flat”, for the purposes of Part 1 of the GPDO.
  [Note: The resulting second floor level of the property (within the proposed roof extension) would contain a bedroom, an en-suite shower room, and a kitchen, albeit that the Inspector states that “the kitchen is accessed from a shared stairwell”].
  [Quote: “Section 254(8) defines a self-contained flat as a separate premises which forms part of a building, either the whole or a material part of which lies above or below some other part of the building, and in which all three basic amenities are available for the exclusive use of its occupants. The appellant is clear, however, that the building would remain in use as a C4 HMO. The plans accompanying the LDC application show that the roof extension would provide an additional bedroom with en-suite facilities, and a kitchen in a separate room. The appellant states that this would be a shared kitchen that would be available for use by other residents of the HMO. The proposed internal layout supports this view, as the kitchen is accessed from a shared stairwell, and there is no evidence to suggest that access to, or use of, the kitchen would be restricted to the occupiers of the new en-suite bedroom. The layout plan further shows that no part of the building would provide a separate self-contained dwelling with all of the facilities for day-to-day private domestic existence. [...] I find that, on the balance of probabilities, the appeal building is used as a C4 HMO now, it would remain in such use if the proposed dormer and skylights are erected or installed, and the proposed dormer and skylights would therefore be granted planning permission under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Classes B and C (respectively) of the GPDO.”].
• 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 an original two-storey rear projection on a two-storey house].
• For the purposes of the post-06/04/2014 version(s) of Part 1 of the GPDO, where a property has an original rear projection with a side-facing pitched roof, part of which is lower than the main rear roof, then an “L”-shaped roof extension (or similar) that extends from the main rear roof onto the side roof of the original rear projection is permitted development. [Note: The roof extension, for part of its (rearmost) width, extends across the original rear eaves]. (*)
  [Conclusion: The works comply with Class B].
• The phrase “the highest part of the ... roof” relates to the property as a whole (i.e. not only to the part of the property that’s being altered or enlarged). (*)
• For example, where a property has a secondary roof that’s lower than the main roof, then an extension on top of this secondary roof can be higher than the highest part of this secondary roof (i.e. so long as the extension is not higher than the highest part of the main roof). (*)
  [Note: The extension is higher than the ridge-line of the original two-storey rear projection].

June 2024 - Code a01701 (appeal allowed):

• A C4 house in multiple occupation (i.e. a “small HMO”) does benefit from Part 1 of the GPDO. (*)
  [Quote: “At Article 3, Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, the GPDO grants planning permission for the enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse, subject to the limitations in paragraphs A.1 and A.2, together with the conditions in paragraphs A.3 and A.4, being satisfied. Class C of Part 1 grants permission for alterations (other than an addition) to the roof of a dwellinghouse, where the limitations in paragraph C.1 and conditions in paragraph C.2 are satisfied. A small HMO within Class C4 is still a ‘dwellinghouse’ for the purposes of the GPDO.”].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that particular works do not constitute “the cladding of any part of the exterior of the dwellinghouse with stone, artificial stone, pebble dash, render, timber, plastic or tiles” for the purposes of A.2(a).
  [Note: The works include the replacement of the existing cement render on the raised parapet walls with new cement render].
  [Quote: “Paragraph A.2(a) of Class A restricts certain works where, as in this case, the dwellinghouse is in a CA. In my view, replacing the render on the parapet walls would not ‘…consist of or include the cladding of the exterior of the dwellinghouse… in render.’ The external surfaces of the parapet walls are already rendered. No further part of the exterior of the building would be covered in render. Therefore, this aspect of the works would not be in breach of the limitation in paragraph A.2(a).”].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that the following materials are “of a similar appearance” to one-another:
  - dark-red concrete tiles versus red clay tiles.
  [Note: On the proposed roof of the main house versus on the existing roof of the main house (respectively)].

June 2024 - Code a01700 (appeal dismissed):

• [Note: To view this information, please log onto the website with a current membership.]

June 2024 - Code a01699 (appeal dismissed):

• [Note: To view this information, please log onto the website with a current membership.]

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.