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:

August 2020 - Code a01209 (3 x appeal dismissed):

• This appeal decision provides an example of where a house has deteriorated to a certain extent, and the Inspector concluded that the property still benefits from Part 1 of the GPDO.
  [Note: The Council states that “The dwellinghouse is in a state of disrepair with signs of structural deterioration with its eastern gable end missing”.
  [Quote: “This reason focuses upon the implications for Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the perceived poor structural condition of [the application site]. I acknowledge that this is a matter that has already been commented upon by other Inspectors, and signs of deterioration, together with the absence of an eastern gable end, were readily discernible to me when I carried out my site inspection. That said, it is not suggested or claimed that [the application site] is anything other than a dwellinghouse at present. It may be that the work involved in implementing the proposals could have deleterious consequences for the structural integrity of [the application site] to the extent that substantial rebuilding operations, or even a complete rebuild, besides the works indicated in the proposals, would be necessitated. Furthermore, it is not inconceivable that such works could lie outside the ambit of the GPDO, as the cases cited by the Council in this respect indicate. Be that as it may, Part 1 Class A of the GPDO makes no reference to either the structural condition of the host building, or the possible consequences of proposed works. However well-founded the Council’s concerns may be, they are not, in my view, sufficient to demonstrate that the proposals in question fall outside the ambit of permitted development set out in Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO. Accordingly, therefore, this is not a consideration to which I am inclined to weight in this instance.”].
• 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 (to the north and west) is approx 0m-4m and 0m-15m (respectively) from the main house].

August 2020 - Code a01208 (appeal dismissed):

• This appeal decision provides an example of where an application was submitted under section 192 (proposed) for works that were begun (or were substantially complete), and the Inspector concluded that the application should be treated as an application under section 191 (existing). (*)
  [Note: The works were begun by the time the application was submitted].
• An application under section 191 (existing) should be assessed on the basis of the actual works that have been carried out on the site (i.e. rather than the hypothetical works that are shown on the submitted drawings). (*)
  [Note: This appeal decision implies (rather than states) this conclusion].
• The assessment of whether a 20cm set back is “practicable” should focus on structural and practical considerations.
• This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector did accept the applicant’s argument that a 20cm set back isn’t “practicable”. (*)
  [Note: For the “L”-shaped roof extension (or similar), the Inspector did accept that a 20cm set back isn’t “practicable” in relation to where the roof extension extends across the original rear eaves (of the main rear roof), but did not accept that a 20cm set back isn’t “practicable” in relation the side eaves of the original two-storey rear projection].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector did not accept the applicant’s argument that a 20cm set back isn’t “practicable”. (*)
  [Note: For the “L”-shaped roof extension (or similar), the Inspector did accept that a 20cm set back isn’t “practicable” in relation to where the roof extension extends across the original rear eaves (of the main rear roof), but did not accept that a 20cm set back isn’t “practicable” in relation the side eaves of the original two-storey rear projection].

August 2020 - Code a01207 (appeal allowed):

• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that two sets of works were undertaken as separate operations (i.e. rather than as a single operation).
  [Conclusion: Rear dormer separate operation from replacement of chimney with a flue].

August 2020 - Code a01206 (appeal dismissed):

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

August 2020 - Code a01205 (appeal dismissed):

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

August 2020 - Code a01204 (appeal dismissed):

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

August 2020 - Code a01203 (split decision):

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

August 2020 - Code a01202 (appeal dismissed):

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

July 2020 - Code a01201 (appeal dismissed):

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

July 2020 - Code a01200 (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.