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:

August 2024 - Code a01733 (appeal allowed):

• This appeal decision provides an example of where the applicant submitted (or offered to submit) an amended drawing during the appeal process, and the Inspector did accept this amended drawing. (*)
  [Quote: “The Council contend that the dormer extension as drawn on the submitted plan [DWG No 1669 B dated June 2023] would only be set 0.15 metres from the eaves, and thus would not comply with B.2 (b)(i)(bb). It is unclear how the Council obtained this figure, particularly given that 1:20 and 1:50 scale bars are both shown on the plan. I note though that only two of the drawings on the plan are specifically marked as being at a 1:20 scale with the remaining drawings, including the proposed side and rear elevations showing the dormer extension, at a 1:50 scale. Nevertheless, the appellant has now provided an annotated version of the plan with the appeal which confirms that the dormer would be set in 0.55 metres from the eaves. This accords with my own assessment of the drawings which, in my view, shows that the dormer would be not less than 0.2 metres from the eaves. Taken together the evidence demonstrates that the dormer extension would comply with condition B.2 (b)(i)(bb).”].
• Class G can be used concurrently with other Classes. (*)
• For example, a proposed roof extension under Class B can include the installation or alteration of a chimney / flue / SVP under Class G. (*)
  [Note: The works include the alteration of an SVP].

August 2024 - Code a01732 (appeal dismissed):

• For the purposes of the post-15/04/2015 version(s) of Part 1 of the GPDO, the term “highway” can apply to a cul-de-sac.
  [Note: The Inspector concludes that a particular cul-de-sac is a “highway”].
• For the purposes of the post-15/04/2015 version(s) of Part 1 of the GPDO, this appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular way or piece of land is a “highway”.
  [Note: The way (or piece of land) is a cul-de-sac that provides vehicular and pedestrian access to the front of properties].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular elevation does “front” a highway, even though there’s a significant angle between the elevation and the highway. (*)
  [Note: The angle is approx 5-7 degrees (and separated by a distance of approx 4.6m-5.4m)].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular elevation does “front” a highway, even though the elevation and the highway are separated either by a significant distance or by land in different ownership or use. (*)
  [Note: Separated by a distance of approx 4.6m-5.4m (and the angle is approx 5-7 degrees)].

August 2024 - Code a01731 (appeal dismissed):

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

August 2024 - Code a01730 (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.