The "GPDO Part 1 (All Classes) - LDC Appeal Decisions" document has been updated to include 8 additional appeal decisions relating to householder permitted development legislation, for which the conclusions are as follows:

July 2016 - Code a00718 (appeal dismissed):

• A flat does not benefit from Part 1 of the GPDO.
• A property that’s in the process of being converted from a house to a different use (i.e. something other than a “dwellinghouse”) does not benefit from Part 1 of the GPDO.
  [Note: House converted into flats].
  [Quote: “As a matter of fact and degree, I consider that neither of the flats nor the maisonette were in being at the time of the application, since the conversion work had not progressed beyond the stripping-out operations and the basic living facilities that would be provided in the new accommodation did not exist. On the other hand, neither was the property as a matter of fact and degree a dwellinghouse at this time in my view, since the stripping-out operations had removed basic living facilities needed for the house to be occupied as a dwelling. Since it was no longer a dwellinghouse at this time, Class E rights were not available for the erection of a building within its curtilage.”].

July 2016 - Code a00717 (appeal allowed):

• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular piece of land is within the “curtilage” of the property.
  [Note: Land is approx 28m-40m from house].
• When assessing whether works would be permitted development, it is not relevant whether the works would accord with the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
  [Quote: “The second paragraph of the decision points out that as the access involves crossing land within a Site of Special Scientific Interest that prior consent of Natural England is required in accordance with Section 28E of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 before any permitted development rights that might apply could be exercised. This is not a reason for withholding a LDC as it relates to a separate area of law and as the agent argues does not affect the lawfulness of the development under the planning legislation only what may be necessary to implement the development having regard to other legislation.”].

July 2016 - Code a00716 (appeal allowed):

• The rear wall of an original rear projection does form part of “the rear wall”.
  [Note: The original rear projection is single storey].
• An original rear wall that has been (entirely) removed still forms part of “the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse”.
  [Quote: “The Technical Guidance issued by the Department for Communities and Local Government on Permitted Development for Householders states that measurement of the extension beyond the rear wall should be made from the base of the rear wall of the original house to the outer edge of the wall of the extension (not including any guttering or barge boards). Whilst this represents the Government’s interpretation of the law, the legislation itself does not reveal any error in that interpretation.”].

July 2016 - Code a00715 (split decision):

• [Note: To view these conclusions, please log onto the website as a member].

July 2016 - Code a00714 (appeal allowed):

• [Note: To view these conclusions, please log onto the website as a member].

July 2016 - Code a00713 (appeal dismissed):

• [Note: To view these conclusions, please log onto the website as a member].

July 2016 - Code a00712 (appeal dismissed):

• [Note: To view these conclusions, please log onto the website as a member].

July 2016 - Code a00711 (appeal dismissed):

• [Note: To view these conclusions, please log onto the website as a member].

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.