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:

May 2020 - Code a01164 (appeal allowed):

• A C4 house in multiple occupation (i.e. a “small HMO”) does benefit from Part 1 of the GPDO. (*)
  [Quote: “I understand that the use of the property fell within either use class C3 (dwellinghouse) or use class C4 (use of a dwellinghouse by not more than six residents as a house in multiple occupation (HMO)) of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 as amended prior to work commencing on the extensions. If that were the case, the extensions would be to a dwellinghouse. In which case, they would fall within Classes A, B, C and G, Part 1, Schedule 2 of the GPDO.”].
• A sui generis house in multiple occupation (i.e. a “large HMO”) does not benefit from Part 1 of the GPDO. (*)
  [Quote: “The Council suggest that the extension was constructed in order to facilitate the use of the property as a large HMO for occupation by more than 6 persons. If the use had changed to become a large HMO before or during construction of the extensions, the use would not fall within any use class, such that they would not benefit from the planning permission granted by that part of the GPDO.”].
• A property that’s in the process of being converted from a house to a different use (i.e. something other than a “dwellinghouse”) does not benefit from Part 1 of the GPDO.
  [Note: House converted into sui generis HMO].
  [Quote: “The Council suggest that the extension was constructed in order to facilitate the use of the property as a large HMO for occupation by more than 6 persons. If the use had changed to become a large HMO before or during construction of the extensions, the use would not fall within any use class, such that they would not benefit from the planning permission granted by that part of the GPDO.”].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a change of use to a house had not occurred by a certain point in time.
  [Note: House converted into sui generis HMO].
  [Quote: “It is clear from the evidence that the property was in use as a dwellinghouse before the extensions were carried out and during assessment of the subsequent planning application for a change of use. I accept that the use was subsequently unlawfully changed and, as the Council suggest, that it is likely it was the intention of the appellant to change the use at the time of doing the works, although that is disputed by the appellant. The Council suggest there is little commercial sense investing in the extension without there being a financial incentive or return, such as the rent arising from occupation by a greater number of people. Nevertheless, whatever the intention of the appellant, the use did not change until some months after the extensions were constructed. The Council acknowledge in their officer report that there was a delay between the extensions being constructed and the use as a large HMO starting. For these reasons, the building was a dwellinghouse during and for several months after construction of the extensions, such that the extensions and change of use to large HMO were separate acts of development. Therefore, the extensions benefit from the planning permission granted by Classes A, B, C and G, Part 1, Schedule 2 of the GPDO.”].

May 2020 - Code a01163 (appeal dismissed):

• This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector (specifically) states that volume (i.e. “cubic content”) should be measured externally.
  [Quote: “The proposal is for a dormer roof extension. The appellant considers this is permitted development and that measurements for it should be taken internally and not externally. However, paragraph 2.(1) of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (‘the Order’) states that “cubic content” means the cubic content of a structure or building measured externally.”].
• 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. (*)

April 2020 - Code a01162 (appeal allowed):

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

April 2020 - Code a01161 (appeal dismissed):

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

April 2020 - Code a01160 (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.