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:

March 2022 - Code a01403 (appeal allowed):

• 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 a number of properties].
• 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”].
• For the purposes of the post-15/04/2015 version(s) of Part 1 of the GPDO, the term “highway” can apply to a cul-de-sac.
  [Note: The Inspector concludes that a particular cul-de-sac is a “highway”].
• This appeal decision provides an example of the types of factors that should be taken into consideration when determining which elevation is “the principal elevation”.
• “The principal elevation” is not necessarily the elevation that fronts a highway.

March 2022 - Code a01402 (appeal dismissed):

• The determination of “the principal elevation of the original dwellinghouse” should be based on the property as it existed on 01/07/1948 or, if built after that date, as so built. (*)
  [Quote: “The first of the 3 points of non-compliance with the Order concessions according to the Council, (para. 6 above), was whether or not the proposed garden building complies with limitation A.1 (e)(i) - the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would extend beyond a wall which — (i) forms the principal elevation of the original dwellinghouse. That depends on which party was right in determining whether the south or the east facing wall of the house was the principal elevation of the original dwelling house - the pre-1948 layout of the house. [...] [The applicant’s] 1970s aerial photograph of [the application site] provides perhaps the best available indication of its original layout. No earlier photographs or plans of this altered and extended house were summitted.”].
• Only one elevation can constitute “the principal elevation”. (*)
• This appeal decision provides an example of the types of factors that should be taken into consideration when determining which elevation is “the principal elevation”.
• “The principal elevation” is not necessarily the elevation that fronts a highway.
• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that the following materials are not “of a similar appearance” to one-another:
  - red sandstone plinth and an oak frame versus red bricks.
  [Note: On the walls of a single storey front extension versus on the walls of the main house (respectively)].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that the following materials are not “of a similar appearance” to one-another:
  - black frame windows versus white UPVC windows.
  [Note: On a single storey front extension versus on the main house (respectively)].
• It is not possible for works that involve engineering operations to fall within the scope of Part 1 of the GPDO. (*)
  [Quote: “There is also a proposed retaining wall to support a new patio extending outwards from the southern and western sides of the garden room. The patio may not be essential to the construction of the garden room. But it is intended to be an integral part of the project. It would amount to an engineering operation as defined by s.55(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act not permitted by the Order.”].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that the infilling of a certain volume of earth (or other material) (i.e. as part of other works) does not fall within the scope of Part 1 of the GPDO. (*)
  [Note: Up to approx 1.0m height of earth would be infilled during the installation of a hard surface].
  [Quote: “There is also a proposed retaining wall to support a new patio extending outwards from the southern and western sides of the garden room. The patio may not be essential to the construction of the garden room. But it is intended to be an integral part of the project. It would amount to an engineering operation as defined by s.55(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act not permitted by the Order.”].

March 2022 - Code a01401 (appeal dismissed):

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

March 2022 - Code a01400 (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.