The "GPDO Part 1 (All Classes) - LDC Appeal Decisions" document has been updated to include 6 additional appeal decisions relating to householder permitted development legislation, for which the conclusions are as follows:

February 2019 - Code a01040 (appeal allowed):

• Class A does allow an extension with a roof that joins onto the roof of the main house. (*)
• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a Class A extension with a roof that joins onto the roof of the main house should also be assessed against Class B, albeit as well as Class C (without applying the 15cm projection limit of C.1(b)). (*)
  [Note: The roof of the extension contains a gable end with window].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular roof extension does constitute “an enlargement which joins the original roof to the roof of a rear or side extension” for the purposes of B.2(b). (*)
  [Note: The roof of the proposed two-storey rear extension / first floor rear extension would join onto the roof of the main house].

February 2019 - Code a01039 (appeal allowed):

• This appeal decision provides an example of where an application under section 191 (existing) was assessed on the basis of the hypothetical works that are shown on the submitted drawings (i.e. rather than the actual works that have been carried out on the site). (*)
  [Note: The applicant submitted an application under section 191 (existing), but made it clear that they wanted the application to be assessed on the basis of the hypothetical works that are shown on the submitted drawings (i.e. the structure that’s separated from the main house by a gap of 0.15m), rather than the actual works that have been carried out on the site (i.e. the structure that’s attached to the main house)].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a structure that’s separated from the main house by a relatively small gap should be assessed against Class E (i.e. rather than Class A).
  [Note: The gap is approx 0.15m].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a structure that abuts the main house (i.e. without a gap) should be assessed against Class A (i.e. rather than Class E).
  [Note: The Inspector comments on the hypothetical situation “if [the structure] abutted the house without a gap”].
  [Quote: “I do not consider that the close proximity of an outbuilding to the house it belongs to precludes it from being incidental Class E permitted development, as long as it is a separate building and it is not connected or linked to the house. It would be different if it abutted the house without a gap, in which case it would be assessed against Class A [...]”].
• Where works exceed the tolerances of permitted development and have been substantially completed (i.e. unlawfully), then it is possible to alter the works so that they become permitted development. (*)
  [Note: This appeal decision implies (rather than states) this conclusion].

February 2019 - Code a01038 (appeal dismissed):

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

February 2019 - Code a01037 (appeal dismissed):

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

February 2019 - Code a01036 (appeal dismissed):

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

February 2019 - Code a01035 (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.