The "GPDO Part 1 (All Classes) - LDC Appeal Decisions" document has been updated to include 10 additional appeal decisions relating to householder permitted development legislation, for which the conclusions are as follows:

August 2023 - Code a01591 (appeal dismissed):

• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular roof extension does not constitute “an enlargement which joins the original roof to the roof of a rear or side extension” for the purposes of B.2(b). (*)
  [Note: The proposed roof extension would join the existing (non-original) rear dormer (on the main rear roof) onto the pitched roof of the original three-storey rear projection].
• For the purposes of the post-06/04/2014 version(s) of B.2(b), where the original eaves have been removed and not reinstated, then it is not possible to comply with B.2(b)(i)(aa). [Note: This conclusion assumes that the roof extension does not fall within the exceptions set out by B.2(b)(i)]. (*)
  [Note: The original eaves were removed before the current works].
• For the purposes of the post-06/04/2014 version(s) of Part 1 of the GPDO, where a property has an original rear projection with a side-facing pitched roof, part of which is lower than the main rear roof, then an “L”-shaped roof extension (or similar) that extends from the main rear roof onto the side roof of the original rear projection is not permitted development. [Note: The roof extension, for part of its (rearmost) width, extends across the original rear eaves]. (*)
  [Note: The front part of the roof extension is existing, and the rear part is proposed].
  [Conclusion: The works are contrary to B.2(b)(i)(aa), noting that the roof extension does not constitute “an enlargement which joins the original roof to the roof of a rear or side extension”].

July 2023 - Code a01590 (appeal dismissed):

• A property that’s in the process of being converted to a house from a different use (e.g. something other than a “dwellinghouse”) does not benefit from Part 1 of the GPDO before the change of use has occurred.
  [Note: 2 houses converted into (single) house].
  [Quote: “In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the construction works to convert the building to a single dwellinghouse had not been completed at the material date. The courts have held that to benefit from permitted development rights, there must be a dwellinghouse in existence at the material date. The building need not be inhabited but it should be sufficiently intact to reasonably support the description of a dwellinghouse. Having regard to the evidence provided, what I saw on site and the agent’s confirmation that the ongoing construction works are those granted by application 21/07121/FU [the 2022 planning permission], a single dwellinghouse has not been shown to exist at the material date. An ‘under construction’ dwellinghouse is not sufficient for the purposes of the GPDO to grant permitted development rights. For this reason, I find that a single dwellinghouse did not exist on the material date to which permitted development rights for the proposed garage could be afforded.”].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a change of use to a house had not occurred by a certain point in time.
  [Note: 2 houses converted into (single) house].
  [Quote: “There is no evidence to show that the two former dwellings were converted into a single dwellinghouse before the lawful implementation of application 21/07121/FU [the 2022 planning permission]. Furthermore, I saw during my accompanied site visit that significant building works were ongoing to what had been the former two dwellinghouses. The agent verbally confirmed that these works were those approved by application 21/07121/FU [the 2022 planning permission]. I saw the building had no roof and various openings within the walls where windows and doors could presumably be installed. Furthermore, the two-storey extension was incomplete, again having no roof, doors or windows. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the construction works to convert the building to a single dwellinghouse had not been completed at the material date.”].

July 2023 - Code a01589 (appeal dismissed):

• If an applicant does not provide information as to whether a proposed development would comply with the conditions of a Class, then an LDC should be refused on this basis.
• For example, if the applicant does not specify whether the new upper-floor side windows would be obscure-glazed and non-opening, then an LDC should be refused on this basis.

July 2023 - Code a01588 (appeal allowed):

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

July 2023 - Code a01587 (appeal dismissed):

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

July 2023 - Code a01586 (appeal dismissed):

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

July 2023 - Code a01585 (appeal dismissed):

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

July 2023 - Code a01584 (appeal allowed):

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

July 2023 - Code a01583 (appeal dismissed):

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

July 2023 - Code a01582 (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.