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:

February 2018 - Code a00907 (appeal dismissed):

• The side wall of an original (part-width) rear projection (i.e. the side wall facing the infill area) is “a wall forming a side elevation”. (*)
  [Note: The original rear projection is single storey].
• For example, an extension to the side of an original (part-width) rear projection where the extension has a width greater than half the width of the original house is not permitted development. (*)
• In the second of the above diagrams, “Extension D” is subject to the “extend beyond” type restrictions in relation to “Wall 2”. [Note: The diagrams are viewable within the “Extend beyond” topic of this document].
  [Note: This appeal decision relates to “a wall forming a side elevation”].

February 2018 - Code a00906 (appeal allowed):

• This appeal decision states, or implies, that where an existing building is unlawful (e.g. due to an unlawful extension, outbuilding, etc), it is possible for an application under section 192 (proposed) to ask the (hypothetical) question of whether it would be lawful to first make the existing building lawful (e.g. by removing the unlawful extension, outbuilding, etc), and then (subsequently) start and complete another set of works under permitted development rights. (*)
  [Note: The Inspector issued an LDC for the erection of a proposed outbuilding, which would replace the existing unlawful outbuilding].
  [Note: The existing unlawful works are the subject of an enforcement notice].
  [Quote: “Section 192(2) requires a lawful development certificate to be issued for proposed operations if they would be lawful if begun at the time of the application for the certificate. By virtue of section 191(2), proposed operations would be lawful if no enforcement action may be taken in respect of them and they do not constitute a contravention of any of the requirements of any enforcement notice in force. The Council’s approach to this matter has become confused. The application is for proposed operations consisting of a new outbuilding, i.e. one which would replace the existing outbuilding. The proposed operations would therefore not contravene the requirement of the enforcement notice to demolish the existing outbuilding; nor could enforcement action be taken in respect of the construction of the new outbuilding in accordance with the application plans, since planning permission has been granted for it by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class E.”].

February 2018 - Code a00905 (appeal dismissed):

• When measuring the height of a structure, “ground level” means the ground level that existed immediately prior-to-works. [Note: In other words, “ground level” means “existing” ground level]. (*)
  [Quote: “Having assessed the overall situation I acknowledge that if the measurement is taken from the line of the now adjacent part of sloping garden, then the relevant height would be much less than 2.5m. However, in this case I agree with the Council’s position that the starting position was not the relevant point relating to the former slope of the garden, but the level of the concrete base formed prior to the LDC application being made. At the time of the LDC application the ground, on which it was proposed to build the garage, was not the former sloping lawned garden. It was the concrete level base formed well before the LDC application was made.”].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that, when measuring the height of a structure, “ground level” is the level that existed after the ground was raised or lowered.
  [Note: The ground was lowered (and a concrete base was formed) “well before” the proposed erection of the outbuilding].

February 2018 - Code a00904 (appeal dismissed):

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

January 2018 - Code a00903 (split decision):

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

January 2018 - Code a00902 (appeal allowed):

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

January 2018 - Code a00901 (3 x appeal dismissed):

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

January 2018 - Code a00900 (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.