The "GPDO Part 1 (All Classes) - LDC Appeal Decisions" document has been updated to include 3 additional appeal decisions relating to householder permitted development legislation, for which the conclusions are as follows:

August 2024 - Code a01724 (appeal dismissed):

• This appeal decision provides an example of where an application was submitted under section 191 (existing), and the actual works that have been carried out on the site are significantly different to the hypothetical works that are shown on the submitted drawings, and the Inspector concluded that an LDC should be refused on this basis. (*)
  [Quote: “The [first] reason for refusal is, in summary, that the application fails to demonstrate due to inaccurate plans and ambiguity that the roof works to [numbers 3 and 5] would accord with Class B, Part 1, Schedule 2 of the GPDO. I have some sympathy with the Council’s position in this respect. Compared with the building as existing at the time of my site visit, there are some clear discrepancies between the application drawing and the development as built. [...] However, the application drawing is not the main issue here. The application drawing is internally consistent. Notwithstanding the defects and omissions with the application drawing highlighted above, it would have been possible to construct the development entirely in accordance with that drawing. The main issue is that the hip to gable loft conversion with rear dormer has not been built in accordance with the application drawing. I turn to this below in relation to the second reason for refusal. [...] I conclude that, on the balance of probability, the hip to gable loft conversion with rear dormer at [numbers 3 and 5] is not permitted by Class B, Part 1, Schedule 2 of the GPDO. This is not because the application drawings are inaccurate to the point of being ambiguous but because, as a matter of fact and degree, the development was not constructed in accordance with those plans.”].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that the following materials are not “of a similar appearance” to one-another:
  - cream render versus brown bricks and brown tiles.
  [Note: On new gable ends and the face and cheeks of a rear dormer versus on the main house (respectively)].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that it is necessary for the materials used for the new works to be “of a similar appearance” to the predominant materials of the existing house (i.e. it is not sufficient to be similar to the materials used on only relatively minor parts of the existing house). (*)
  [Conclusion: The new gable ends and the face and cheeks of a dormer can’t be similar to the stone quoins along the front corners of the main house or the stone detailing around some of the windows and doors].
• When assessing whether the materials used for the new works are “of a similar appearance to those used in the construction of the exterior of the existing dwellinghouse”, it is not possible to take into consideration the materials used for the neighbouring properties. (*)
  [Quote: “Likewise, it is no defence to argue that other properties in the vicinity are finished in materials that are similar to those used on the hip to gable loft conversion with rear dormer. The provisions in Class B.2(a) of the GPDO, and explained in the Technical Guidance, relate solely to the dwelling to be enlarged.”].

August 2024 - Code a01723 (appeal allowed):

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

July 2024 - Code a01722 (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.