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 2025 - Code a01837 (appeal dismissed):

• Where the roof of a property has raised parapet walls (e.g. along the line of the party walls between the application site and the adjoining properties), then the building up on top of these raised parapet walls does not fall within the scope of Class B. (*)
  [Note: The extension would (possibly) involve building up on top of the party wall between the application site and the adjoining property, albeit that there’s not actually a raised parapet wall along this line)].
  [Quote: “However, the loft floor plan on that drawing appears to indicate that the side walls/dormer cheeks would be constructed fully/partially over the side wall and party wall respectively of the dwelling and not appreciably inset from those walls as shown on the elevations. The appellant has stated that the timber frame construction would sit on top of the rafters and all external finishes would be added onto that construction. Nonetheless, that is not what is depicted on the floor plan as the notation indicates a timber frame wall would be constructed partially over the party wall. [...] As such, there is ambiguity as to where the side walls/dormer cheeks would be constructed. I acknowledge that the design of the development cited in the appeal decision referred to by the Council does not appear to be the same as that before me. Nevertheless, that Inspector’s decision highlights that a proposed development may not fall squarely within the definition of a roof alteration under Class B. This is because a proposed development may not sit within the roof of the building, as it previously existed, where the walls of that building are being extended upwards. Consequently, in that scenario the development would not be treated as an addition to the roof but an extension to the building to form an additional storey. [...] In this case there is doubt as to where the side walls/dormer cheeks would be constructed, and therefore I cannot be certain that the proposed development would fall squarely within Class B.”].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that the following materials are not “of a similar appearance” to one-another:
  - composite cladding (with no further details) versus reddish-brown tiles.
  [Note: On the face and cheeks of a rear dormer versus on the roof of the main house (respectively)].
• 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: “The drawing indicates that composite cladding would be used on the walls/cheeks of the dormer but no colour or any other detail is specified for that cladding on the drawing. The appellant’s appeal evidence indicates that the cladding is to be anthracite in colour and was chosen to match the colour of the neighbour’s property. Yet, the condition at Class B.2(a) states that the materials used in any exterior work must be of a similar appearance to those used in the construction of the exterior of the existing dwellinghouse and not a neighbouring property.”].
• Where an application under section 192 (proposed) is made for a roof extension that’s contrary to Class B and a roof alteration that complies with Class C, then this appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector concluded that an LDC should be refused with respect to both the roof extension and the roof alteration. [Note: In other words, the Inspector did not issue a split decision]. (*)
  [Note: The Inspector dismissed the appeal with respect to “loft conversion ... and under 50m3 dormer and hip to gable extension ...”].
  [Quote: “Two rooflights are shown on the front elevation on the submitted drawings. The Council does not dispute that they would be permitted development under Class C of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the GPDO. However, the rooflights are designed to serve the converted loft space. They are not therefore separable building operations and are part and parcel of the proposed development to facilitate the loft conversion.”].

August 2025 - Code a01836 (appeal dismissed):

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

August 2025 - Code a01835 (appeal allowed):

• [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.