The "GPDO Part 1 (All Classes) - LDC Appeal Decisions" document has been updated to include 6 additional appeal decisions relating to householder permitted development legislation, for which the conclusions are as follows:

September 2020 - Code a01223 (appeal dismissed):

• This appeal decision provides an example of where a condition (on a previous planning permission) removes permitted development rights under a previous version of the GPDO but doesn’t refer to subsequent versions of the GPDO, and the Inspector concluded that the condition 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 GPDO, the development must not be contrary to any condition on an existing planning permission; Article 3(4). Here, even though condition No 4 relates to the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1977 due to Section 17(2) of the Interpretation Act 1978 the condition has a continuing effect in respect of the GPDO. Whilst I appreciate that the Council have previously taken a different view and that this may have given rise to confusion, those previous decisions are not a matter for my consideration in this appeal. For the reasons given above and with no evidence to indicate that condition No 4 has been removed or varied, I am content that this condition continues to have effect. Consequently, condition No 4 restricts development within the curtilage of [the application site] and as such the two storey rear extension is development for which express planning permission is required, and that could only be granted on application to the local planning authority in the first instance.”].

September 2020 - Code a01222 (appeal allowed):

• This appeal decision provides an example of the types of factors that should be taken into consideration when determining which elevation is “the principal elevation”.
• More than one wall facing the same direction can form “the principal elevation” (in the case where the elevation is staggered horizontally). (*)
• In the third of the above diagrams, “Extension B” is not subject to the “extend beyond” type restrictions in relation to “Wall 2”. [Note: The diagrams are viewable within the “Extend beyond” topic of this document]. (*)
  [Note: This appeal decision relates to “the principal elevation”].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where a property has a (relatively minor) projecting element that the Inspector concluded does not form part of “the principal elevation”.
  [Note: The projecting element is a square bay window (with length approx 0.8m) on the side elevation at ground floor level].

September 2020 - Code a01221 (appeal allowed):

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

September 2020 - Code a01220 (appeal allowed):

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

September 2020 - Code a01219 (appeal dismissed):

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

September 2020 - Code a01218 (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.