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:

March 2026 - Code a01924 (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 the replacement of the hipped roof of the main house with a crown roof (i.e. a roof with a flat area in the centre and pitches at the sides)].
  [Quote: “In this case, the proposed development would involve the demolition of several chimneys and the removal of a significant majority of the existing hip to gable roof structure and its replacement with a crown type (flat) roof extension, including a dormer window. The development would occupy the majority of the existing roof area with only a modest amount of the original roof remaining. The appellant provided details from a structural engineer including drawings to illustrate what would be retained of the original roof. The appellant confirmed that a large part of the original roof would be removed but stated that at least 775mm of roof slope (from eaves to the roof addition) on all four elevations would be retained, with the engineer confirming that the roof adjacent to the perimeter eaves would be retained during construction. I acknowledge that a hip to gable enlargement and dormer roof extension would almost always result in the removal of relatively large parts of an existing roof. However, given the extent of the proposed works in this case, there would be a significant amount of demolition and reconstruction in respect of the majority of the roof area. As a matter of fact, and degree, I find the proposed development would not therefore amount to either an “addition” or “alteration” to the roof as a substantial part of the original roof structure would not remain. As such, the development would not constitute permitted development by virtue of Classes B and C of the GPDO.”].
• 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 the replacement of the hipped roof of the main house with a crown roof (i.e. a roof with a flat area in the centre and pitches at the sides)].
  [Quote: “... there would be a significant amount of demolition and reconstruction in respect of the majority of the roof area.”].
• This appeal decision provides an example of the types of factors that should be taken into consideration when determining which elevation is “the principal elevation”.
• “The principal elevation” is not necessarily the elevation that fronts a highway.

March 2026 - Code a01923 (appeal dismissed):

• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that the following materials are not “of a similar appearance” to one-another:
  - grey cement board cladding versus reddish-brown bricks.
  [Note: On the proposed front wall of the main house versus on the existing front wall of the main house (respectively)].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that the following materials are not “of a similar appearance” to one-another:
  - grey cement board cladding versus reddish-brown tile-hanging.
  [Note: On the proposed front wall of the main house versus on the existing front wall 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 condition and my assessment solely relate to the appearance of the dwellinghouse subject of this appeal. There is no scope within the condition to consider materials used in adjoining properties, nor are the planning merits relevant to an LDC determination.”].

February 2026 - Code a01922 (appeal allowed):

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

February 2026 - Code a01921 (appeal dismissed):

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

February 2026 - Code a01920 (appeal allowed):

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

February 2026 - Code a01919 (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.