The "GPDO Part 1 (All Classes) - LDC Appeal Decisions" document has been updated to include 2 additional appeal decisions relating to householder permitted development legislation, for which the conclusions are as follows:

September 2024 - Code a01738 (appeal dismissed):

• Where a Council incorrectly advises an applicant (e.g. via email, letter, etc) that works would be permitted development, and the applicant submits an application for an LDC for the same works (or similar works based on the same incorrect interpretation), then it is not the case that the existence of the previous advice requires the Council (or Inspector) to issue an LDC.
  [Quote: “The appellant asserts that a Council planning officer, on its planning advice line, advised in May 2021 that the work did not require planning permission. However, it is a fundamental principle that a local planning authority may not fetter its discretion to issue an enforcement notice by any form of agreement. Even if an officer of the Council did advise verbally that proposed works did not require planning permission in May 2021, the Council is not prevented from taking enforcement action by such advice. Furthermore, when the appellant sought confirmation that the proposed works did not require planning permission in writing, the Council advised the appellant to apply for a Certificate of Lawful Development.”].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that works involving a slight excess beyond one of the limitations or conditions are not permitted development (i.e. the Inspector didn’t refer to the excess as “de minimis” or similar). (*)
  [Note: 6.2m length exceeds 6.0m limit (i.e. by 3.3%)].
  [Note: Relates to A.1(g) of the GPDO 2015].
• Where a proposed extension (under Class A) would be attached to an existing extension, then the phrase “[the] total enlargement” applies to the combined structure. [Note: In other words, the combined structure should be assessed against those limitations and conditions of Class A that apply to “[the] total enlargement”].
  [Note: Relates to A.1(ja) (with respect to A.1(j)) of the GPDO 2015].
• An original side wall that has been (entirely) removed still constitutes “a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse”. (*)
  [Note: Relates to the side wall of an original (part-width) single storey rear projection].
  [Quote: “The Council has provided a historic map of the application site, said to be from 1953, which appears to show that the property had an outrigger to the rear. The appellant suggests this is irrelevant now, as there is no outrigger at the site. However, A.1(j) refers to the ‘original’ dwellinghouse. The Permitted Development Rights for Householders Technical Guidance advises that ‘original’ means a building as it existed on 1 July 1948 where it was built before that date, and as it was built if built after that date. The appellant has not shown that the ‘original’ dwellinghouse did not have an outrigger. From the historic map provided by the Council, it seems likely that the properties along this part of [the highway] had outriggers and, since the map is dated 1953, this is likely to reflect the buildings as they existed on 1 July 1948 (or as they were built, if built after 1948). It appears that the outrigger did not extend across the full width of the dwellinghouse but was set well back from the boundary with [the neighbouring property to the north-west side]. The rear extension which is currently in situ projects further towards the rear than the outrigger appears to have done and extends the full width of the dwellinghouse. The conservatory projects from the rear extension at an angle and occupies much of the width of the dwellinghouse. The rear extension is therefore likely to extend beyond a side wall of the original dwellinghouse and, since the rear extension and conservatory are more than half the width of the original house, the proposed works would exceed the limitations set out under Part 1, Class A, A.1 (ja).”].

September 2024 - Code a01737 (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.