The "GPDO Part 1 (All Classes) - LDC Appeal Decisions" document has been updated to include 6 additional appeal decisions relating to householder permitted development legislation, for which the conclusions are as follows:

May 2023 - Code a01552 (appeal dismissed):

• 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 7m-18m 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: “The undisputed evidence is that the land to which the building would be positioned has always been owned by those that occupy the dwellinghouse. Aerial photographs show that until very recently the land where the outbuilding is proposed to be sited including mature trees. In my judgment, and despite land ownership, these trees were appreciated as being part of parcel of the wider woodland setting. Like the land to the north of the access, also in the ownership of the appellant, which includes trees, historically this land represented a marked contrast between the more manicured lawns that exist around the dwellinghouse on the site. [...] As a matter of fact and degree, and considering the history of the site (both past and present), I find that the appellant has not sufficiently demonstrated that from a use or function point of view the outbuilding land serves the house in a necessary or useful way. I conclude, for the above reasons, that the outbuilding would not therefore be positioned on land falling within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse and therefore it would not constitute permitted development under Class E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the GPDO.”].

May 2023 - Code a01551 (appeal dismissed):

• 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 contains the main entrance door.
• More than one roof slope facing the same direction can form “the principal elevation”. (*)
• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a roof slope that’s significantly set back from a forward projection of the property does form part of “the principal elevation”. (*)
  [Note: The roof slope is set back by approx 6.4m].
• In the first of the above diagrams, “Roof Extension A” does not comply with B.1(c). [Note: The diagrams are viewable within the “Extend beyond” topic of this document]. (*)
  [Note: The roof extension extends directly rearward onto the corner part of the recessed front roof].

May 2023 - Code a01550 (appeal dismissed):

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

May 2023 - Code a01549 (appeal allowed):

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

May 2023 - Code a01548 (appeal dismissed):

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

May 2023 - Code a01547 (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.