The "GPDO Part 1 (All Classes) - LDC Appeal Decisions" document has been updated to include 7 additional appeal decisions relating to householder permitted development legislation, for which the conclusions are as follows:

April 2023 - Code a01542 (appeal dismissed):

• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular structure is “original”.
  [Note: Relates to A.1(ja) (with respect to A.1(j)) of the GPDO 2015].
  [Note: The structure is a single storey side projection (“integral garage”)].
  [Quote: “The appellant has provided a copy of the original plan that was approved as part of the 1949 planning permission. This shows the footprint and elevations of the property as it existed in 1949, including the previous integral garage. A measurement has been annotated on this plan to show the width of the dwellinghouse, including the integral garage, as being 8.75 metres. While I have been provided with no evidence of when the property was originally constructed, it is likely that if the dwellinghouse existing on 1 July 1948 it would have included the integral garage as shown in the plans in August 1949 given the short interval of time between these two dates. Therefore, it can be taken that the extent of the ‘original dwellinghouse’ is that shown on the 1949 plan, which includes the integral garage, but excluding the side extension that was permitted at that time. Without any evidence to the contrary, it is this that forms the baseline against which any subsequent extensions and alterations should be measured.”].
• Class A does allow an extension with a roof that joins onto the roof of the main house. (*)
• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a Class A extension with a roof that joins onto the roof of the main house should also be assessed against Class B, albeit as well as Class C (without applying the 15cm projection limit of C.1(b)). (*)
  [Note: The roof of the extension does not contain a habitable room].

April 2023 - Code a01541 (appeal dismissed):

• The phrase “the curtilage of [a / the] dwellinghouse” refers to the curtilage as it exists (immediately) prior-to-works. [Note: In other words, “curtilage” means “existing” curtilage].
  [Quote: “Having regard to all the authorities it is apparent that whether something falls within a ‘curtilage’ is a question of fact and degree and, thus, primarily a matter for the decision maker. What is apparent is that the relevant date on which to determine the extent of the curtilage is the date of the application for the LDC, but this involves considering both the past history of the land and how it is laid out and used at the time of the application.”].
• The “curtilage” of a dwellinghouse can change over time (e.g. it can become larger, smaller, etc).
  [Quote: “It is possible for the extent of curtilage to change over time.”].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular piece of land is not within the “curtilage” of the property.
  [Note: The land is approx 38m-50m from the main house].
• Furthermore, the above was concluded even though it was accepted that the piece of land is within the applicant’s ownership / unit of occupation / planning unit / etc.
  [Quote: “A small portable swimming pool has been erected at the end of this part of the garden and beyond that, with access from the garden path and through an arched trellis, is the former meadow land acquired by the appellants in 2006/7 and now lawfully used as garden land. It is on this land that the garden building would be sited. [...] There is no dispute between the parties that the land is used as an extended garden for [the application site] and a lawful development certificate was granted by the Council in 2018 for its use as residential garden. However, although the former meadow land is now in residential use and contiguous with [the application site’s] original rear garden, by reason of its scale and location I do not consider it to have an intimate association with the dwellinghouse. Indeed, until 2006/7 it was in a different ownership and utilised for different purposes. Even though there is no longer a physical boundary separating the former meadow land from [the application site], and the land now functions as a garden, it is remote from the dwellinghouse. It is not an area which I consider to contain the house, or on which the house sits, but more of an adjunct. [...] I conclude, from the evidence before me and observations on my site visit that, as a matter of fact and degree, the land where the building would be sited is not within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse for Part 1 purposes.”].

April 2023 - Code a01540 (appeal allowed):

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

April 2023 - Code a01539 (appeal dismissed):

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

April 2023 - Code a01538 (appeal dismissed):

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

April 2023 - Code a01537 (appeal dismissed):

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

March 2023 - Code a01536 (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.