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:

July 2021 - Code a01322 (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].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular piece of land is not within “the curtilage of a listed building”.
  [Note: The land is approx 41m-47m from the listed building, and separated from the listed building by the garden of another residential property].
  [Quote: “The appellants indicate that they are the owners of the appeal property. I recognise that it is likely that the appeal property was at one time in the ownership of the church, albeit I have no evidence before me to suggest was at the time that St John the Baptist’s church was listed. The appeal property is in independent residential use. I recognise that it is likely that the appeal property was, when known as The Vicarage, occupied residentially in connection with the Church of St John the Baptist. But that is no longer case, with the fact that is no longer known as The Vicarage alluding to that. To summarise, the appeal property is a privately owned dwelling that has a clearly identifiable curtilage of its own. It has no functional link with the listed building and is physically separated from it by an intervening residential property. I consider it likely that the appeal property was within the curtilage of the Church of St John the Baptist at some point in the past. However, for the reasons stated above, I consider that this is no longer the case and that the appeal property was not within the curtilage of a listed building on the date that the application for the LDC was made.”].
• The “curtilage” of a listed building can change over time (e.g. it can become larger, smaller, etc).
  [Note: This appeal decision implies (rather than states) this conclusion].
  [Note: The Inspector concludes that a particular piece of land is not within the existing curtilage, even though it was within the original curtilage].
• The phrase “the curtilage of a listed building” refers to the curtilage as it exists (immediately) prior-to-works. [Note: In other words, “curtilage” means “existing” curtilage].
  [Note: This appeal decision implies (rather than states) this conclusion].
  [Note: The Inspector concludes that a particular piece of land is not within the existing curtilage, even though it was within the original curtilage].

July 2021 - Code a01321 (2 x appeal allowed):

• Where the roof of a property has raised parapet walls (e.g. along the line of the party walls between the application site and the adjoining properties), then the building up on top of these raised parapet walls does fall within the scope of Class B. (*)
  [Quote: “For each appeal, the Council considers that the appeal development is not lawful because of what it describes as the vertical extension of the parapet walls. It is the Council’s view this cannot be considered an alteration or addition to the roof. But it has been established in case law that parapet walls and other barriers will generally be regarded as additions or alterations to the roof and there is no evidence that this should not be so in this case. So for each appeal, the Council’s concern in this regard does not mean that the proposed development is not lawful. [...] Also in respect of Appeal B, the Council states that a dormer extension effectively needs to be set in from the party/parapet walls instead of encompassing the upper projection/building upon them, so that it is wholly an extension to the roof not also an extension of exterior walls. But I have not been referred to any authority for this view and it is not what is reflected in the wording of the Order. So based on the information provided, I do not accept either appeal development to be unlawful for this reason.”].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where the submitted information contained inconsistencies (or similar), and the Inspector concluded that an LDC should not be refused on this basis.
  [Note: The submitted drawings do not show the remaining part of an original chimney, which would be removed by the proposed roof extension].
• Where a property has a secondary roof that’s slightly lower than the main roof, then an extension on top of this secondary roof should be assessed against Class B (i.e. rather than Class A). (*)
  [Note: The secondary roof is the roof of an original two-storey rear projection on a two-storey house].
• The phrase “the highest part of the ... roof” relates to the property as a whole (i.e. not only to the part of the property that’s being altered or enlarged). (*)
• For example, where a property has a secondary roof that’s lower than the main roof, then an extension on top of this secondary roof can be higher than the highest part of this secondary roof (i.e. so long as the extension is not higher than the highest part of the main roof). (*)
  [Note: The extension is higher than the ridge-line of the original two-storey rear projection].

July 2021 - Code a01320 (appeal dismissed):

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

July 2021 - Code a01319 (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.