The "GPDO Part 1 (All Classes) - LDC Appeal Decisions" document has been updated to include 5 additional appeal decisions relating to householder permitted development legislation, for which the conclusions are as follows:

August 2021 - Code a01327 (appeal dismissed):

• Where a property has an existing outbuilding that’s lawful but already exceeds the tolerances of Class E(*), then Class E does not allow the alteration of this existing outbuilding. [(*) e.g. the outbuilding was granted planning permission by the Council, or was erected under the previous version of Class E, or has become lawful through the passage of time, etc]. (*)
  [Quote: “The appellant asserts that, even if the external alterations would constitute development, the external alterations as proposed, the removal of the garage doors and the insertion of windows accord with the criteria set out within Class E, Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)(England) Order 2015 (GPDO)(as amended). Class E permits the provision within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse of ‘any building or enclosure...required for a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse as such, or the maintenance, improvement or other alteration of such a building or enclosure’. Development is not permitted by Class E if: (d) the building would have more than a single storey; and (e) the height of the building...would exceed(i) 4 metres in the case of a building with a dual-pitched roof, (ii) 2.5 metres in the case of a building...within 2 metres of the boundary of the curtilage of the dwellinghouse. The building has more than one storey, is within 2 metres of the boundary and exceeds 4 metres in height. Consequently, it does not meet the above conditions set out in Class E.”].
• The requirement for a Class E outbuilding to be used for an “incidental” purpose does not allow the use of an outbuilding for primary living accommodation, such as a bedroom, bathroom, or kitchen.
• Where a property has an existing outbuilding (that’s used for an “incidental” purpose), then it is not possible (as a single operation) to alter (or enlarge) the outbuilding (e.g. under Class E) and to change its use to a non-“incidental” purpose (e.g. as works not requiring PP).
  [Quote: “Much of the appellants’ case is predicated on the basis that there would be no material change of use and the appellants have drawn my attention to a number of appeal decisions, which considered whether or not accommodation which provides living accommodation would result in a material change of use. I accept that, as confirmed in Uttlesford DC v SSE & White [1992] JPL 171 even if the accommodation provided facilities for independent day-to-day living, it would not necessarily become a separate planning unit from the main dwelling. Nevertheless, as set out above, the proposed works are development for which planning permission is required. Since the works would be an integral part of the conversion, the proposed garage conversion to a residential annexe is development for which planning permission is required.”].

July 2021 - Code a01326 (appeal dismissed):

• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that particular works should be assessed against Class A (i.e. rather than Classes B or C).
  [Note: The works include the removal of part of the main rear roof to form a roof terrace (within the envelope of the existing roof)].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular structure does constitute a “verandah, balcony or raised platform”. [Note: In other words, such a structure is prevented by the limitations about balconies (i.e. A.1(k), B.1(e), and E.1(h))].
  [Conclusion: A flat surface at second floor level, with area (approx) 3.0m x 2.0m = 6.0m2, accessed from the main house via proposed folding/sliding glazed doors (within the envelope of the existing roof), and enclosed on the other 3 sides by walls (within the envelope of the existing roof), is a “raised platform”].

July 2021 - Code a01325 (appeal dismissed):

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

July 2021 - Code a01324 (appeal dismissed):

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

July 2021 - Code a01323 (appeal allowed):

• [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.