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:

August 2026 - Code a01994 (appeal allowed):

• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular property is a “dwellinghouse”, rather than a “flat”, for the purposes of Part 1 of the GPDO.
  [Note: The resulting second floor level of the property (within the proposed roof extension) would contain a bedroom, a bathroom, and a kitchen, albeit that the Inspector states that “the kitchen and bathroom would not be contained within the sixth bedroom itself, but that they would both be accessed separately via the landing”].
  [Quote: “The Council’s second objection is that the proposed loft conversion would result in the creation of a self-contained flat which would form a separate planning unit. The proposed floor plan however shows that the kitchen and bathroom would not be contained within the sixth bedroom itself, but that they would both be accessed separately via the landing. There is also nothing within the application to suggest that occupants of other rooms, such as those on the first floor, would not be able to access and use the kitchen and bathroom within the loft if so desired. I do not find therefore that the proposed plans demonstrate the creation of a self-contained flat.”].
• A C4 house in multiple occupation (i.e. a “small HMO”) can benefit from Part 1 of the GPDO. (*)
  [Note: This appeal decision implies (rather than states) this conclusion].
  [Quote: “It is not a condition of qualifying for permitted development rights under Part 1 of the GPDO that a “dwellinghouse” is of a particular type or used in accordance with Use Class C3.”].
• 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, all 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 all of its (rearmost) width, extends across the original rear eaves]. (*)
  [Conclusion: The works comply with Class B].
• 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].
• 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].

August 2026 - Code a01993 (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.