The "GPDO Part 1 (All Classes) - LDC Appeal Decisions" document has been updated to include 3 additional appeal decisions relating to householder permitted development legislation, for which the conclusions are as follows:

October 2024 - Code a01741:

• Permitted development rights do not apply where the existing building or use is unlawful. (*)
  [Quote: “Article 3(5) of the GPDO states that the permission granted by Schedule 2 does not apply if (a) in the case of permission granted in connection with an existing building, the building operations involved in the construction of that building are unlawful; (b) in the case of permission granted in connection with an existing use, that use is unlawful. I wrote to the parties regarding the [enforcement notice] [2023] appeal decision and asked them to consider the application of Article 3(5) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)(England) Order 2015 (as amended)(the GPDO). The appellant states that all the requirements of the EN have been complied with and there are therefore no unlawful uses on the land. The appellant goes on to explain that the unauthorised use for storage of motor vehicles had ceased many months previously (prior to the Council’s [LDC] appeal statement) (but) following the dismissed enforcement [EN] [2023] appeal. However, I must consider the lawfulness of the proposal on the date of the LDC application, 14 August 2023, which was prior to the issue of the [EN] [2023] appeal decision, 26 October 2023. As concluded by the previous Inspector, the land (within which it is proposed to locate the outbuilding) was not within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse. Although the previous Inspector’s site visit was carried out some time before the [EN] [2023] appeal decision was issued, by the appellant’s own admission, the unauthorised use ceased after the Inspector’s decision was issued, which was after the date of the LDC application. On the date of the LDC application, therefore, the land was not within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse. Moreover, the development would have been precluded by Article 3(5) because the use of the land was unlawful.”].
• For an application under section 192 (proposed), the (hypothetical) question is whether the works would be lawful if begun at the time of the application. (*)
• For an application under section 192 (proposed), if the property was “unlawful” for the purposes of article 3(5) of the GPDO at the time of the application, but the property is not “unlawful” by the date the application is determined, then the works should be assessed on the basis that the property is “unlawful”. (*)

October 2024 - Code a01740 (appeal dismissed):

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

September 2024 - Code a01739 (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.