The "GPDO Part 1 (All Classes) - LDC Appeal Decisions" document has been updated to include 4 additional appeal decisions relating to householder permitted development legislation, for which the conclusions are as follows:

September 2019 - Code a01071 (appeal dismissed):

• Where a proposed extension (under Class A) would be separated from an existing extension by a relatively small gap, then this appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that the phrase “[the] total enlargement” applies to the combined structure. [Note: In other words, the combined structure should be assessed against those limitations and conditions of Class A that apply to “[the] total enlargement”]. (*)
  [Note: The gap is approx 0.125m].
  [Note: Relates to A.1(ja) (with respect to A.1(j)) of the GPDO 2015].
  [Note: The works involve altering an existing extension so that its single storey part would be separated from its two-storey part by a gap of 0.125cm, and then attaching the proposed extension to the altered single storey part of the existing extension].
• This appeal decision states, or implies, that the successful completion of the prior approval process is not legally equivalent to confirmation that the proposed development would be lawful (i.e. confirmation that it would comply with all of the other limitations and conditions of Part 1 Class A). (*)

September 2019 - Code a01070 (appeal dismissed):

• This appeal decision states, or implies, that it is not possible for an application under section 192 (proposed) to ask the (general) question of whether a property benefits from Part 1 of the GPDO (i.e. without specifying a particular set of works).
  [Quote: “A certificate of lawfulness was granted by the Council on 16 January 2019 for the use of the site as a single C3 dwellinghouse with ancillary garden land, outbuildings, pedestrian/vehicle access and hardstanding. The appeal application relates to the same parcel of land as the granted certificate. However, the proposal in effect posed a general enquiry as to what might be lawful at the site. Thus, no actual proposals or details were provided to describe the building operations in question. The Government’s National Planning Policy Guidance sets out that an application for a certificate of lawfulness ‘needs to describe precisely what is being applied for…’ and that without ‘sufficient or precise information, a local planning authority may be justified in refusing a certificate.’ It continues that in ‘the case of applications for proposed development, an applicant needs to describe the proposal with sufficient clarity and precision to enable a local planning authority to understand exactly what is involved.’ The appeal application does not contain sufficient or precise information to enable the decision maker to establish the lawfulness of any proposed building operations. The onus is on the appellant to provide any such information, but he has failed to discharge those responsibilities.”].

September 2019 - Code a01069 (appeal allowed):

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

September 2019 - Code a01068 (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.