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:

March 2021 - Code a01283 (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 20m-45m from the main house and separated from the main house by a 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: “Whilst the whole site is within the ownership of the appellant, this by itself is not determinative, particularly given the substantial size of the plot. The outbuilding would be located within a part of the site which is substantially separate from the main dwelling. There is also significant ambiguity as to how this part of the land has been used in the past. I cannot therefore be sure it has been used as part and parcel of the house or that it forms part of the curtilage of the residential property known as [the application site].”].

March 2021 - Code a01282 (appeal allowed):

• This appeal decision provides an example of where a condition (on a previous planning permission) does not (directly) remove permitted development rights, and the Inspector concluded that the development is not contrary to this condition.
  [Note: The condition states that “The building hereby permitted shall not be occupied until provision for car parking has been made within the site in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and such provision shall thereafter be used only for the parking of cars.”].
  [Quote: “From my reading of the approved plan and the original planning permission for the appeal property, the approved layout shows a garage and an area directly in front of the garage which could also be used for car parking. However, the approved plan does not explicitly state that the garage must be retained for the parking of vehicles only. Nor does condition 8 implicitly intend to seek to remove PD rights for any type of development within the GPDO. Whilst I note that the Council state that the garage is one of the two parking spaces which would have been provided for this property, I observed that there were two vehicles comfortably parked on the driveway of the property, in front of the garage. As such, based on all the evidence before me, there is nothing to suggest that condition 8, and the original planning permission requires the retention of the garage for car-parking, and therefore PD rights apply, with regards to the conversion of the garage, under Article 3 and Class A of Part 1, Schedule 2 of the GPDO.”].

March 2021 - Code a01281 (appeal dismissed):

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

March 2021 - Code a01280 (appeal dismissed):

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

February 2021 - Code a01279 (appeal allowed):

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

February 2021 - Code a01278 (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.