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:

February 2025 - Code a01778 (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: “Schedule 2, Part 1, Class B of the GPDO grants planning permission for the enlargement of a dwellinghouse consisting of an addition or alteration to its roof. The proposal would involve replacing the existing two side hipped roofs with gable ends and the construction of a large flat box dormer that would occupy a significant part of the rear roof. New rooflights would be added to the front roof slope. The Council refused the application on the basis that the extent of the works would amount to demolition and re-construction of the roof and thus go beyond the planning permission granted by the GPDO to add to or alter the roof of the dwellinghouse. The GPDO does not define what may constitute additions or alterations, but it seems to me that the works must not comprise reconstruction by demolition and rebuilding. In this case, the two side roofs would have to be removed. Also, constructing the sizeable rear dormer means that a significant extent, if not all for practical construction reasons, of the main rear roof would disappear as well. Furthermore, in carrying out such extensive works to the rest of the roof, the front roof would require significant works to become a fully sloped roof to meet the new gable ends. It also appears that to maintain the current ridge height, the front roof slope would alter. Even if this is not the case, I cannot realistically see that any of the existing front roof would be retained and supported for the duration of the construction works. The appellant has pointed out that the property needs extensive restoration work, and the original roof may need fully replacing anyway. All in all, the proposal means an entire new roof is, as a matter of fact and degree, probable. That development would, in my view, fall to be reconstruction of the roof by demolition and rebuilding. It would not therefore be development granted planning permission by Schedule 2, Part 1, Class B of the GPDO. The appellant has not provided any facts, such as construction details or a schedule of works, that could reasonably rebut the Council’s reason for refusing the LDC application.”].
• 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: “That development would, in my view, fall to be reconstruction of the roof by demolition and rebuilding.”].

February 2025 - Code a01777 (appeal dismissed):

• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular structure is not “original”.
  [Note: The Inspector actually concludes that it’s not been demonstrated that the structure is “original”].
  [Note: Relates to A.1(ja) (with respect to A.1(f)) of the GPDO 2015].
  [Note: The structure is a (part-width) single storey rear projection (“the existing kitchen and bathroom projections”)].
  [Quote: “The main area of contention is whether the [proposed] rear single storey extension, combined with existing enlargements, extend more than 3 metres beyond the rear elevation of the original dwelling in compliance with paragraph (f)(i) of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A (Class A) of the Order. In making their assessment, the Council regarded the existing kitchen and bathroom [projections] as enlargements to the original dwelling. When combined, the Council determined that the extensions would extend more than 3 metres beyond the original two storey rear elevation of the dwelling. However, the appellants indicate that a historical map, dated 1954, shows that the rear single storey projections formed part of the original dwelling. The appellants state that the rear projections extended as far as the existing kitchen, and the staggered depth of the combined extensions would comply with paragraph (f)(i) Class A of the Order. I have had regard to the appellants’ position and acknowledge that a staggered rear elevation on historical terraced properties is not unusual. However, the appellants have not provided the historical map, and I am relying upon their interpretation of the plan with no point of reference. Furthermore, based on the evidence before me, the enlargements and alterations at neighbouring properties along the rear of the terrace block are varied in nature, making it difficult to make an accurate comparison between the appeal site and any unaltered neighbouring dwelling. In my judgement, the evidence provided to me is imprecise and ambiguous when demonstrating that the original rear additions extended as far as the existing kitchen. Without these details I have no solid evidential basis to determine whether the combined extensions would be compliant with paragraph (f)(i) of Part 1, Class A of the Order. Accordingly, the appellants have not discharged the required burden of proof and have failed, on the balance of probability, to show that the proposed extensions would have been lawful on the date of the application.”].

February 2025 - Code a01776 (appeal dismissed):

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

February 2025 - Code a01775 (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.