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:

December 2017 - Code a00892 (appeal dismissed):

• The excavation of a lightwell does fall within the scope of Class A.
  [Note: This appeal decision implies (rather than states) this conclusion].
  [Note: The lightwell is to the front of the main house and is below ground level, albeit that it has a steel security grille at approx ground level].
• 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”.
• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that the phrase “the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse” does apply to a particular structure. [Note: In other words, the structure should be assessed against those limitations and conditions of Class A that apply to “the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse”].
  [Note: The structure is a lightwell (below ground level) with a steel security grille (at approx ground level)].

December 2017 - Code a00891 (appeal dismissed):

• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that the phrase “dual-pitched roof” does not apply to a particular roof.
  [Note: The outbuilding has a main part with a hipped roof and a secondary part (at a lower level) with a flat roof].

December 2017 - Code a00890 (appeal dismissed):

• 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: The land is approx 25m-43m from the house].
• The determination of “the principal elevation of the original dwellinghouse” should be based on the property as it existed on 01/07/1948 or, if built after that date, as so built. (*)
  [Quote: “But, even though the north-east elevation of the house, which now contains its front door and associated porch, faces towards Free Green Lane, albeit at some distance away from the road, this arrangement only appears to have come about as a result of the implementation of the scheme for which planning permission was granted in May 2016. [...] I accept that the south-west elevation of the house only faces towards an internal track within the nursery holding as opposed to a public highway. Nevertheless, even though the house’s address is given as Free Green Lane, the foregoing factors lead me to conclude that, regardless of how ‘Hawthorne House’ appears now, as a matter of fact and degree, the principal elevation of the original dwellinghouse was its south-west one.”].
• 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”.
• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that the phrase “dual-pitched roof” does apply to a particular roof.
  [Note: The outbuilding has a “U”+ “–”-shaped footprint with a dual-pitched roof along each of the four parts of the “U”+ “–”, such that there’s a merging section where these four roofs meet].

November 2017 - Code a00889 (appeal dismissed):

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

November 2017 - Code a00888 (appeal dismissed):

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

November 2017 - Code a00887 (appeal dismissed):

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

November 2017 - Code a00886 (appeal allowed):

• [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.