The "GPDO Part 1 (All Classes) - LDC Appeal Decisions" document has been updated to include 5 additional appeal decisions relating to householder permitted development legislation, for which the conclusions are as follows:

December 2019 - Code a01105 (appeal dismissed):

• Where a property has an existing (non-original) extension with a roof that joins onto the roof of the main house, then this existing extension does reduce the volume (i.e. “cubic content”) that remains under B.1(d) for further extensions. (*)
• Furthermore, the above conclusion still applies even if the roof of the existing extension doesn’t contain any habitable rooms / rooflights / dormer windows / etc. (*)

December 2019 - Code a01104 (2 x appeal dismissed):

• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a condition (on a previous planning permission), which removes permitted development rights under a previous version of the GPDO but doesn’t refer to subsequent versions of the GPDO, does remove permitted development rights under the current version of the GPDO.
  [Quote: “In order to benefit from any planning permission granted by Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 as amended (GPDO), the development must not be contrary to any condition on an existing planning permission; Article 3(4). Here, even though condition No 6 relates to the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988 (GDO 1988) due to Section 17(2) of the Interpretation Act 1978 the condition has a continuing effect in respect of the GPDO. Moreover, even though the appellant has cited a subsequent planning permission that permission relates to extensions to [the application site] and not its replacement. Therefore, the 1991 permission is still extant on the site and I have no evidence to indicate that condition No 6 has been removed or varied. [...] Consequently, condition No 6 restricts development within the curtilage of [the application site]. There is no dispute that the swimming pool enclosure and the retractable Perspex roof over the tennis court are within the curtilage of [the application site]. I have found that both structures can be treated as buildings. As such, they are development for which express planning permission is required, and that could only be granted on application made to the local planning authority in the first instance.”].

December 2019 - Code a01103 (appeal dismissed):

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

December 2019 - Code a01102 (appeal allowed):

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

December 2019 - Code a01101 (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.