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 2022 - Code a01450 (appeal dismissed):

• For the purposes of A.1(b) and E.1(b), this appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular structure does count towards “the total area of ground covered by buildings [, enclosures and containers]”. [Note: In other words, the structure does use up some (or all) of the 50% limit].
  [Note: The structure is the corner of an outbuilding, such that this corner is not enclosed by a roof, is enclosed by a part-height wall on one side, and is enclosed by a full-height wall on the other side].
  [Quote: “The proposal comprises the erection of an outbuilding in the rear garden of the property. The roof plan shows the building would be ‘L’ shaped to the rear. The appellant states that this has been done to reduce the floor area of the building by 5.16m2 and ensure the building falls below the 50% of the total curtilage threshold set out in paragraph E.1(b) of Class E. However, the proposed floor plan shows a wall which would connect with the side wall of the building and the rear wall of that part of the building which would contain the office. The appellant’s evidence suggest this would be a brick wall with no roof covering and would be finished in hard surfacing. However, the rear elevation detail shows a single rear wall extending across the full 7.15m width. Whilst that part of the rear wall where the ‘L’ shape is proposed would not extend up to the full height of the building as the folding doors in the outbuilding are partially exposed, the rear elevation detail nevertheless points towards a single building operation. Moreover, the side elevation detail shows no delineation for the ‘L’ shape to the rear as it does with the ‘L’ shape to the front of the building. Rather it shows a single wall extending from the bi-folding doors at the front of the building to the rear wall on the boundary line. As a result, on the evidence before me, it seems to me on the balance of probabilities that the building will cover the 5.16m2 of ground which the appellant indicates would comprise a “set in”. [...] Therefore, the development would fail to meet the limitation set out under paragraph E.1(b) of Class E of the GPDO.”].

July 2022 - Code a01449 (appeal allowed):

• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular elevation does not “front” a highway, noting that there’s a significant angle between the elevation and the highway. (*)
  [Note: The angle is approx 90 degrees].

July 2022 - Code a01448 (appeal dismissed):

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

July 2022 - Code a01447 (split decision):

• [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.