The "GPDO Part 1 (All Classes) - LDC Appeal Decisions" document has been updated to include 7 additional appeal decisions relating to householder permitted development legislation, for which the conclusions are as follows:

June 2026 - Code a01973 (appeal allowed):

• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that particular works do fall within the scope of Class B, on the basis that the works do not exceed what constitutes “the enlargement of a dwellinghouse consisting of an addition or alteration to its roof”. (*)
  [Note: The works include a side and rear dormer (albeit with gable ends to the sides].
  [Quote: “The Council consider that the proposed roof enlargement would involve substantial demolition, reconfiguring and rebuilding of the roof of the dwelling and so would not constitute additions or alterations to the roof falling within Class B and Class C. In this respect, reference is made to established case law, which confirms that whether works can fairly be said to be ‘maintenance’ or whether they are properly called ‘rebuilding’ is a matter of fact and degree [Street v MHLG & Essex CC [1965] 193 EG 537 & Larkin v Basildon DC [1980] JPL 407]. In Street, the Court held that the Secretary of State (SoS) had been entitled to conclude that the rebuilding of a dwelling which had been largely demolished to foundation level was not within permitted development. In Larkin, it was held that the SoS had been entitled to conclude that the rebuilding of all external walls of a dwelling as a single building operation went beyond works of improvement and so fell outside of permitted development. The proposed roof enlargement would involve cutting into and removing parts of the existing roof of the dwelling, at the rear and at the sides. The appellant’s calculations show that around 42% of the existing roof would be removed as part of the proposed roof enlargement, with about 58% remaining in situ. The Council did not query the accuracy of the appellant’s calculations and following my own assessment, based on the available evidence, there is no sound reason why I should do so. As a result, with more than half not being removed, the greater part of the existing roof of the dwelling would be retained in the proposed roof enlargement. In my view and as the appellant pointed out, a number of considerations, including minimising construction costs as well as limiting the effects on the continued occupation of the dwelling during the building works, mean that, in practice, the proposed roof enlargement is unlikely to involve removal of more of the existing roof structure than as set out above. [...] Therefore, as a matter of fact and degree, in my judgement the proposed roof enlargement would not involve more than an addition or alteration to the roof of the dwelling and so would fall within the scope of the works permissible under Class B and Class C.”].

June 2026 - Code a01972 (split decision):

• Where an original porch would be replaced (under Class D), then for the purposes of D.1(b) “the ground area ... of the structure” is the area of the whole of the resulting structure (i.e. rather than the area of only the additional parts of the resulting structure).
  [Quote: “The appellant assessed the external ground area of the porch as not exceeding the 3m2 limit in Class D, at paragraph D.1(b). This conclusion seems to have been arrived at by excluding the ground area of the existing front porch, which was probably erected contemporaneously with the dwelling, from the total ground area of the proposed porch. Even so, the drawings supplied indicate that the existing porch would be substantially demolished prior to erecting the proposed porch. The reference in the application description to creating a front porch also suggests that the existing porch would be demolished. The ground area measurement for the purposes of paragraph D.1(b) applies to the totality of the proposed porch; nothing in Class D provides that the ground area of the porch being demolished should be taken into account. Moreover, since the demolition works would include removing the existing external door, the door which leads to the hallway would be the ‘external door’ for the purposes of Class D. Consequently, I share the Council’s view concerning the total floor area of the porch, which at around 5.83m2 measured externally would breach the limitation in paragraph D.1(b).”].

June 2026 - Code a01971 (2 x appeal allowed):

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

June 2026 - Code a01970 (appeal allowed):

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

June 2026 - Code a01969 (appeal allowed):

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

June 2026 - Code a01968 (appeal dismissed):

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

June 2026 - Code a01967 (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.