The "GPDO Part 1 (All Classes) - LDC Appeal Decisions" document has been updated to include 10 additional appeal decisions relating to householder permitted development legislation, for which the conclusions are as follows:

June 2020 - Code a01179 (appeal dismissed):

• An original side wall that has been (entirely) removed no longer constitutes “a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse”. (*)
  [Note: Relates to the side wall of an original (part-width) single storey rear projection].
  [Note: In my opinion, it’s not clear whether the Inspector concludes that the side wall of an original (part-width) rear projection 1) is not “a wall forming a side elevation” (i.e. even before its removal), or 2) is “a wall forming a side elevation” before its removal but is not “a wall forming a side elevation” after its removal].
  [Quote: “I have considered the submissions that the development falls within Class A.1 (j) and (ja) but these relate to side extensions and total enlargements. In my view, they do not relate to a situation where a new building extension to the rear of the property would be constructed in place of the original lean-to structure”].
• Furthermore, the above conclusion still applies even if the original side wall would be (entirely) removed as part of the current works. (*)

June 2020 - Code a01178 (appeal dismissed):

• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular piece of land is not within the “curtilage” of the property.
  [Note: The land is approx 3m-43m from the main house and separated from the main house by a wall].
• Furthermore, the above was concluded even though it was accepted that the piece of land is within the applicant’s ownership / unit of occupation / planning unit / etc.
  [Quote: “Whatever the existing use may have been in 1973, the application was clearly for a dwelling, it is not described as a replacement farmhouse and it doesn’t seem the farm was in active use. It is a matter of fact that the red line describes the planning unit, and there is no reason to consider that was a mistake at the time. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that the whole site was granted planning permission for residential use, including the area containing the cow shed and the later pole barn. However, the planning unit and the lawful use of the land do not necessarily indicate the extent of curtilage. As I note above that is a matter of fact and degree, depending partly on what actual use that is made of the land.”].
• The “curtilage” of a dwellinghouse can change over time (e.g. it can become larger, smaller, etc).
  [Quote: “I should note that on my site visit, the situation had changed considerably. The pole barn, car port and associated buildings had all been removed, new fencing erected and the whole area seemed to be in the process of being turned into usable garden space. Curtilage, of course, can change over time and is not limited to land that is lawfully residential. If the question was asked today as to the extent of the curtilage at [the application site] the answer might be different. But the question posed in this appeal is whether the land on 29 August 2019 was within the curtilage of [the application site] and the answer to that, must, on the balance of probabilities, be no.”].
• The phrase “the curtilage of [a / the] dwellinghouse” refers to the curtilage as it exists (immediately) prior-to-works. [Note: In other words, “curtilage” means “existing” curtilage].
  [Quote: “I should note that on my site visit, the situation had changed considerably. The pole barn, car port and associated buildings had all been removed, new fencing erected and the whole area seemed to be in the process of being turned into usable garden space. Curtilage, of course, can change over time and is not limited to land that is lawfully residential. If the question was asked today as to the extent of the curtilage at [the application site] the answer might be different. But the question posed in this appeal is whether the land on 29 August 2019 was within the curtilage of [the application site] and the answer to that, must, on the balance of probabilities, be no.”].

June 2020 - Code a01177 (appeal dismissed):

• For the purposes of the requirement of A.1(h) that the extension (with more than a single storey) is not within 7m of the rear boundary, this appeal decision states, or implies, that the shortest distance between the extension and the rear boundary should be measured.
  [Quote: “The appellant says that that there would be more than 7m from the rear of the proposed extension to the boundary. He says that the new proposed plan indicates this. I have considered the plan carefully. However, the boundary of the dwellinghouse’s curtilage opposite its rear wall is not parallel with it. The distance to this boundary from both the rear wall of the original dwelling and from the proposed enlargement varies along its length. Notwithstanding that the distance between the westerly section of boundary and the proposed enlargement would be more than 7m, the distance would be less than 7m at other points of the boundary and particularly towards the east of the site. Page 21 of Permitted Development Rights for Householders – Technical Guidance is clear that the measurement should be taken from the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse to the nearest part of the boundary of the curtilage opposite the rear wall.”].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular boundary is “opposite” the rear wall of the house.
  [Note: The angle between the boundary and the rear wall is approx 38 degrees (rather than the typical angle for a rear boundary of 0 degrees (i.e. parallel))].

June 2020 - Code a01176 (appeal dismissed):

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

May 2020 - Code a01175 (appeal allowed):

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

May 2020 - Code a01174 (appeal dismissed):

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

May 2020 - Code a01173 (appeal dismissed):

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

May 2020 - Code a01172 (appeal dismissed):

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

May 2020 - Code a01171 (appeal dismissed):

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

May 2020 - Code a01170 (split decision):

• [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.