The "GPDO Part 1 (All Classes) - LDC Appeal Decisions" document has been updated to include 6 additional appeal decisions relating to householder permitted development legislation, for which the conclusions are as follows:

February 2026 - Code a01912 (appeal allowed):

• Where a proposed extension (under Class A) would be separated from an existing extension by a relatively small gap, then this appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that the phrase “[the] total enlargement” applies to only the proposed extension. [Note: In other words, only the proposed extension should be assessed against those limitations and conditions of Class A that apply to “[the] total enlargement”]. (*)
  [Note: The gap is approx 0.2m].
  [Note: Relates to A.1(ja) (with respect to A.1(h) and A.1(j)) of the GPDO 2015].

February 2026 - Code a01911 (appeal allowed):

• Where an existing (non-original) extension has reduced the volume (i.e. “cubic content”) that remains under B.1(d) for further extensions, and (part of) this existing extension is removed, then this previously used volume is regained. (*)
  [Note: This appeal decision implies (rather than states) this conclusion].
  [Note: The hipped roof of the existing two-storey side extension would be replaced with a flat roof as part of the current works].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where a property has an existing (non-original) extension with a roof that does not join onto the roof of the main house, and the Inspector concluded that this existing extension does not reduce the volume (i.e. “cubic content”) that remains under B.1(d) for further extensions. (*)
  [Note: The ridge-line of the existing single storey side extension is at a significantly lower level than the eaves of the main side roof of the two-storey house].
  [Quote: “The TG advises as regards the Class B volume allowance that ‘Any previous enlargement to the original roof space in any part of the house must be included’ in the B.1.(d) volume allowance. The LPA contends that this means that the volume of the single storey [side] extension roof should be included in the B.1.(d) volume allowance, with the result that this would be exceeded. However, plainly the relevant sentence relied upon in the TG references only previous enlargements to the original roof space. The single storey [side] extension roof is not connected to the roof of the main house and as such does not represent an enlargement to the original roof space. I share the appellant’s view that simply because a roof space at the property is not original does not mean that it represents an enlargement for the purposes of Class B. The volume of the single storey side extension roof space does not therefore fall to be included within the B.1.(d) volume allowance.”].

February 2026 - Code a01910 (appeal dismissed):

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

February 2026 - Code a01909 (appeal allowed):

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

January 2026 - Code a01908 (appeal allowed):

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

January 2026 - Code a01907 (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.