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:

July 2020 - Code a01189 (appeal dismissed):

• The term “eaves” does apply to the edge of a flat roof. (*)
  [Note: This appeal decision implies (rather than states) this conclusion].

July 2020 - Code a01188 (appeal allowed):

• A house that’s become lawful through the passage of time (i.e. the 4 or 10 year rule) does benefit from Part 1 of the GPDO. (*)
  [Quote: “The 2016 LDC established the lawful use of the property, through the non-compliance with the planning condition, as an independent dwelling. A clear implication of this is that the use of the property as a single dwelling house had become immune from enforcement and was thereby lawful. At the point at which it became lawful it also formed a separate planning unit from the former host dwelling and was no longer subject to the terms of the 2001 planning permission. This is because the formation of the new planning unit, which is no longer within the curtilage of the former host property, and its separate use as an independent dwelling constitute the start of a new chapter in its planning history. As such, on the date of the application the property benefited from PD rights for a single dwelling house.”].

June 2020 - Code a01187 (appeal dismissed):

• This appeal decision provides an example of where a condition (on a previous planning permission) removes (some) permitted development rights by specifying particular works or Classes, and the Inspector concluded that the development is contrary to this condition.
  [Note: The condition requires that the garage “... shall thereafter be used for no purpose other than the parking of motor vehicle” (and refers to the GPDO 1995)].
  [Quote: “Condition 14, referred to above, applies to the appeal property and clearly prohibits the use of the garage for anything other than the parking of motor vehicles. In accordance with Article 3(4) of the GPDO, that condition effectively removes the relevant PD rights otherwise granted by that Order. [...] There is nothing in the appellant’s case to indicate that the condition on the outline permission excluding PD rights was unlawful. The GPDO would not grant planning permission for the proposal and accordingly, the appellant has not proved on the balance of probability that the operations described in the application would be lawful if begun at the time of the application.”].

June 2020 - Code a01186 (appeal dismissed):

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

June 2020 - Code a01185 (appeal dismissed):

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

June 2020 - Code a01184 (2 x appeal dismissed):

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

June 2020 - Code a01183 (2 x appeal allowed):

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

June 2020 - Code a01182 (appeal dismissed):

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

June 2020 - Code a01181 (appeal dismissed):

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

June 2020 - Code a01180 (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.