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 2024 - Code a01717 (appeal dismissed):

• 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. (*)

July 2024 - Code a01716 (appeal dismissed):

• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular caravan (i.e. within its own site, or within a caravan site, etc) does not benefit from Part 1 of the GPDO.
  [Note: The caravan is situated within its own site].
  [Quote: “Although “dwellinghouse” is not comprehensively defined in Article 1(2) of the GPDO, the contents of Part 1 are predicated on the basis that a building is involved. [...] Overall, as a matter of fact and degree, I find that on the evidence before me, the unit complies with the definition of a caravan as set out in section 29(1) of the 1960 Act, including section 13 of the 1968 Act. [...] The question of whether a caravan would amount to a building has also been the subject of established case law. In Measor v SSETR & Tunbridge Wells BC [1999] JPL 182 it was found that a conclusion that all caravans are buildings would offend against the provisions of the 1990 Act and be contrary to common sense. That is not to say that a caravan could never become a building but generally a caravan would not constitute a building due to the factors of permanence and attachment. [...] Overall, I find that the limited evidence put forward in support of the contention that the unit is a building within the meaning of s336(1) of the 1990 Act, falls well short of discharging the burden of proof. I consider that the unit, does not have the degree of permanence and physical attachment to the land necessary for it to be reasonably regarded as a building. Consequently, as a matter of fact and degree, the unit remains within the definition of a caravan and has not become a building. [...] For the reasons outlined above, the proposed extensions would not constitute PD by virtue of Article 3 of the GPDO because, notwithstanding the 2020 LDC which confirmed its lawful use as a “permanent dwelling”, the unit is not a building and therefore it does not benefit from PD rights.”].

July 2024 - Code a01715 (appeal dismissed):

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

July 2024 - Code a01714 (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.