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

March 2022 - Code a01404 (appeal allowed):

• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular structure (or particular works) should be assessed against Class A (i.e. rather than Class D).
  [Note: The works would enclose an original inset area that’s recessed in relation to a non-original flat roof above, and a wall on three sides].
  [Quote: “I have considered whether what is proposed amounts to the construction (by enclosure) of a porch, but a construction that does not create any ground area. It is the case that the ‘inset’ is presently roofed (described as ‘part-covered’ on the Existing Plan, drawing ref SCSD0146.237), and walled to 3 sides but although potentially contributing to the overall building footprint it does not presently consist of any habitable floorspace and is open to the elements. On balance I do not think that what is proposed can reasonably be described as the ‘erection or construction’ of a porch (and it is anyway not described as such by either party). It therefore does not fall to be considered under Class D. [...] Therefore I conclude that the proposal would be permitted by Class A, and that the Council’s refusal was not well-founded in this regard.”].
• The front wall of an original (part-width) front projection does form part of “the principal elevation”.
  [Note: The original front projection is single storey (an attached garage)].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where a property has two forward-facing walls, one of which is directly to the front of the other, and the Inspector concluded that the outermost forward-facing wall does form part of “the principal elevation”.
  [Note: The innermost forward-facing wall is recessed in relation to a non-original flat roof above, a wall on one side, and the wall directly in front].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where a property has two forward-facing walls, one of which is directly to the front of the other, and the Inspector concluded that the innermost forward-facing wall does not form part of “the principal elevation”.
  [Note: The innermost forward-facing wall is recessed in relation to a non-original flat roof above, a wall on one side, and the wall directly in front].
• 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 garages shown on the deposited plan shall be used as garages only and that no vehicles other than private vehicles shall be housed therein.”].
  [Quote: “Whilst the present proposal in respect of the garage does not expressly include any matters relating to its use, the proposal includes bricking up the existing garage doors and adding ‘tunnel’ windows to the front elevation. Such works would clearly preclude the use as a garage which the relevant planning conditions each require (on the assumption that ‘use as a garage’ contemplates the housing of vehicles). [...] Construing the condition together with the reasons for it, it is aimed at ensuring that the garage remains in use as a constituent element of the residential dwellinghouse use that was then being permitted for the building to be constructed, seeking expressly to prevent any use of the garage for commercial purposes. Insofar as reasons were given for the imposition of the condition, they related only to restraining any commercial uses. No reasons were given relating to the desirability of maintaining the appearance of the garage, or why it might be important for the garage to be made available for housing domestic vehicles. There is no reference in the condition to prohibiting ‘any other purpose whatsoever’ or requiring any express planning consent to allow any physical alterations or different use, the phrasing found in Dunnett to be clearly exclusive of permitted development rights. [...] Given all these factors, I am not persuaded that the condition has the effect of restricting the permitted development rights that arise under Class A for the development that it is now sought to carry out. The wording of the condition is not sufficiently unequivocal or explicit for me to conclude that it operates to exclude those rights. Its supporting reasons do not say why it should. Whether in turn it restricts the ability of the occupants to use the garage for other purposes that may (or may not) be primarily or incidentally related to the use of the dwellinghouse is not a question before me. Therefore I do not consider the Council’s refusal in this regard to have been well-founded, and shall allow the appeal in respect of this element too.”].

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.