The "GPDO Part 1 (All Classes) - LDC Appeal Decisions" document has been updated to include 2 additional appeal decisions relating to householder permitted development legislation, for which the conclusions are as follows:

April 2025 - Code a01794:

• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular roof extension does constitute “an enlargement which joins the original roof to the roof of a rear or side extension” for the purposes of B.2(b). (*)
  [Note: The proposed roof extension would join the main rear roof onto the pitched roof of the original two-storey rear projection].
• This appeal decision states, or implies, that where a roof extension falls within one of the exceptions set out by B.2(b)(i) or B.2(b)(ii) (i.e. in the case of “a hip-to-gable enlargement” or “an enlargement which joins the original roof to the roof of a rear or side extension”), then all parts of the roof extension (including those parts that are not responsible for the exception) are exempt from the subsequent requirements of B.2(b)(i) or B.2(b)(ii). (*)
  [Conclusion: The roof extension constitutes “an enlargement which joins the original roof to the roof of a rear or side extension” (i.e. due to the middle part of the roof extension), and 1) the front part of the roof extension does not need to be set back by (at least) 20cm from the rear eaves of the main rear roof, and 2) the rear part of the roof extension does not need to be set back by (at least) 20cm from the side eaves of the original two-storey rear projection].
  [Quote: “However, this requirement is qualified by the text at paragraph B.2(b)(i) which states: ‘other than in the case of a hip-to-gable enlargement or an enlargement which joins the original roof to the roof of a rear or side extension-’ (my emphasis). This provides an exemption from the 0.2 metre setback requirement for the types of roof enlargement specified. Paragraph B.4.(b) clarifies that a “rear or side extension” includes an original part of, or subsequent extension of, the dwellinghouse that extends from the rear or side of the principal part of the original dwellinghouse. In this case, the development has involved an enlargement which joins the original roof of the dwellinghouse to the roof of a rear extension – the rear outrigger. Therefore, the exemption set out at B.2(b)(i) applies in this case, and so there is no requirement for the enlargement to be setback from the eaves by 0.2 metres. The external walls of the roof enlargement have been set flush with the side elevation of the rear outrigger, and flush with the rear elevation of the main part of the dwellinghouse. Consequently, there is no set back from the eaves. However, I have found that a setback is not required for this type of enlargement to qualify as permitted development.”].
• 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. In particular, the works comply with B.2(b) on the basis that the roof extension does constitute “an enlargement which joins the original roof to the roof of a rear or side extension”].
• 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].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that particular works do fall within the scope of Class B, without the Inspector referring to the issue of whether or not the works exceed what constitutes “the enlargement of a dwellinghouse consisting of an addition or alteration to its roof”. (*)
  [Note: The works include an “L”-shaped roof extension (or similar) that covers most (or all) of the roof of the rear projection].

March 2025 - Code a01793 (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.