The "GPDO Part 1 (All Classes) - LDC Appeal Decisions" document has been updated to include 4 additional appeal decisions relating to householder permitted development legislation, for which the conclusions are as follows:

October 2020 - Code a01241 (appeal dismissed):

• For a property within a conservation area (or other article 2(3) land), A.2(a) not only prevents the cladding of the main house, but also prevents the cladding of an extension.
  [Note: The extension would be “rendered”].
• For a property within a conservation area (or other article 2(3) land), where the existing house is finished solely in cladding, then it is not possible for an extension (other than a conservatory) to be permitted development. This is because A.3(a) requires the extension to be finished in cladding, but A.2(a) prevents the extension from being finished in cladding.
  [Note: This appeal decision implies (rather than states) this conclusion].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that significant weight should be attached to the advice within the “Permitted development rights for householders - Technical Guidance” document. (*)
• The side wall of an original (part-width) rear projection (i.e. the side wall facing the infill area) is “a wall forming a side elevation”. (*)
  [Note: The original rear projection is single storey].
• For example, an extension to the side of an original (part-width) rear projection within a conservation area (or other article 2(3) land) is not permitted development. (*)

October 2020 - Code a01240 (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 18m-25m from the main house and separated from the main house by a wall and fence].
• 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: “I have no reason to doubt that both areas are within the same land ownership and collectively form part of the rear garden of the appeal site, as opined previously by the Council and a Planning Inspector when dealing with a different development proposal at the property. However whilst both the use and ownership of land are relevant to considering the curtilage boundary, neither are necessarily decisive.”].

October 2020 - Code a01239 (2 x appeal dismissed):

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

October 2020 - Code a01238 (appeal allowed):

• [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.