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:

September 2022 - Code a01470 (appeal dismissed):

• This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector (specifically) states that volume (i.e. “cubic content”) should be measured externally.
  [Quote: “Article 2(1) of the GPDO clarifies that ‘cubic content’ means the cubic content of the structure or building measured externally. Various measurements have been set out on the existing roof plan, proposed rear elevation plan, proposed side elevation plans, and proposed volume plan. [...] However, annotations on the proposed plans show the appellant has not used measurements of the external parts of the existing extended roof space in their calculations. [...] The appellant’s calculations have not been demonstrated, on the balance of probabilities, to rely on external measurements.”].
• Where a property has an existing (non-original) extension with a roof that joins onto the roof of the main house, then this existing extension does reduce the volume (i.e. “cubic content”) that remains under B.1(d) for further extensions. (*)
• Furthermore, the above conclusion still applies even if the roof of the existing extension doesn’t contain any habitable rooms / rooflights / dormer windows / etc. (*)
• In an application for an LDC, the burden of proof is firmly on the applicant.

September 2022 - Code a01469 (appeal dismissed):

• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular property (that’s only partly attached to another property) does constitute a “terrace house” for the purposes of B.1(d).
  [Note: The Inspector actually concludes that it’s not been demonstrated that the property is not a “terrace house”].
  [Note: The host property (number 17) is fully attached to the neighbouring property (number 19).  The existing (non-original) two-storey side extension of the latter property (number 19) appears (when viewed from the street) to be attached to the existing (non-original) two-storey side extension of the next property (number 21), and the Inspector states that “Those main walls appear to be adjoined physically, even if it is only by way of the mastic silicone pointed strip and coping seen from the front, with a gap on part of the rear elevation”].
  [Quote: “It is clear that the appeal dwelling [number 17] shares a party wall with [number 19]. The southern elevation side wall of [number 19], the northern elevation side wall of [number 21], and the front elevation walls of [numbers 19 and 21] all constitute main walls of those dwellings. Those main walls appear to be adjoined physically, even if it is only by way of the mastic silicone pointed strip and coping seen from the front, with a gap on part of the rear elevation. The extent of the gap between the two dwellings on their rear elevations is not clear, and as such I am not convinced that a main wall of [number 19] does not adjoin a main wall of [number 21]. Applying the interpretation of Part 1 of the GPDO for ‘terrace house’ as set out above, it has not been demonstrated in a precise and unambiguous way that the appeal dwelling does not constitute a terrace house at the end of a row of other terrace houses. Therefore, taking all of the above into account, I find that the appellant has failed to show, on the balance of probabilities, that the proposed development would accord with limitation B.1(d) of Class B.”].

September 2022 - Code a01468 (appeal dismissed):

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

September 2022 - Code a01467 (split decision):

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

September 2022 - Code a01466 (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.