The "GPDO Part 1 (All Classes) - LDC Appeal Decisions" document has been updated to include 3 additional appeal decisions relating to householder permitted development legislation, for which the conclusions are as follows:

June 2021 - Code a01314 (split decision):

• For the purposes of the post-15/04/2015 version(s) of Part 1 of the GPDO, the term “highway” can apply to an unadopted road (i.e. a private road that’s not maintainable at the public expense).
  [Note: The Inspector concludes that a particular unadopted road is a “highway” and states that “A highway means a public right of way such as a public road and may include an unadopted street or private way.”].
• For the purposes of the post-15/04/2015 version(s) of Part 1 of the GPDO, this appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular way or piece of land is a “highway”.
  [Note: The way (or piece of land) is an unadopted cul-de-sac that provides vehicular and pedestrian access to the front of properties.  The Inspector concludes that the shared part of this driveway is a highway].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular elevation does “front” a highway, even though the highway does not pass fully in front of the elevation.
  [Quote: “Alternatively, and as the appellant contends, the driveway ceases to be shared, and becomes private once it enters his property. In this scenario, in which ownership and access rights are key, the principal elevation does not front a highway, limitation (c) does not apply, and the dormer windows are permitted by Class B. A conveyancing plan confirms the appellant’s private ownership of the final section of the driveway. However, the plan also shows that shared rights do not end at the boundary but continue a short way, in front of part of the principal elevation. With the second scenario adjusted to reflect this fact, the plane of the existing roof slope in that elevation partly fronts a section of the shared driveway. The shared driveway is a highway in both scenarios and even if it does not pass the entire principal elevation, the relationship is sufficient for limitation (c) to apply. Consequently, the dormer windows are not permitted by Class B.”].
• Where an application under section 192 (proposed) is made for a roof extension that’s contrary to Class B and a roof alteration that complies with Class C, then this appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector concluded that an LDC should be refused with respect to only the roof extension. [Note: In other words, the Inspector did issue a split decision]. (*)
  [Note: The Inspector dismissed the appeal with respect to the front dormers, and allowed the appeal with respect to the front rooflights and the rear rooflights].
  [Quote: “For the reasons given above I conclude, on the evidence now available, that the Council’s refusal to grant an LDC in respect of the 2 dormer windows in the roof plane of the principal elevation was well-founded. Section 193(4)(a) of the Act allows that where an application specifies two or more operations, an LDC may be issued for all of them or some one or more of them. Accordingly, I also conclude that the Council’s refusal to grant an LDC in respect of the proposed roof lights was not well-founded and that the appeal should succeed to that extent. I will exercise the powers transferred to me under section 195(2) of the Act.”].

June 2021 - Code a01313 (appeal dismissed):

• [Note: To view this information, please log onto the website with a current membership.]

June 2021 - Code a01312 (appeal dismissed):

• [Note: To view this information, please log onto the website with a current membership.]

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.