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:

October 2024 - Code a01743 (appeal dismissed):

• A property that’s in a mixed use (e.g. as residential and something else) does not benefit from Part 1 of the GPDO.
  [Note: Mixed use as residential and a plant nursery business].
  [Quote: “I should explain that for permitted development rights under Class E to apply, the use of the host development must be regarded to be in Class C3 use (residential) of the Use Classes Order 1987. Schedule 1 Part C. Article 3(6) goes on to specify a number of sui generis uses. However, in addition to these a mixed use site would also be considered to be a sui generis use, thus falling outside any of the use classes and the scope of Class E of the GDPO. [...] In general, the starting point is that the unit of occupation is the appropriate planning unit, unless smaller planning unit(s) can be identified. At the Hearing it was confirmed that the appeal site was purchased by the appellants some 32 years ago. At this time the dwelling and land included an ongoing nursery business that had been operating for at least 5 years prior to their purchase. At this time there were a number of polytunnels, greenhouses and outbuildings on the land, some associated with the nursery and others the dwelling. From the evidence heard at the Hearing, including that given by the interested party, the positioning of these various structures seems to have changed and evolved over the intervening years. At my visit there were no formal fenced boundaries within the appeal site separating the business from the residential use, although there were several planted beds that provided some limited visual separation. The nursery business appears to be of a scale where it could not reasonably be described as secondary to the residential use. Accordingly in my judgement, the two uses co-exist across the whole site. This view seems to be supported by the proximity of one of the greenhouses to the dwelling and garage and the residential annex that replaced another commercial greenhouse, that was demolished in 2017/2018. The shared access running adjacent to the dwelling, provides parking for both the residential uses and the business, including the liveried trailer. Moreover, it is understood that business related plants are stored periodically in this area whilst waiting to be transported from the site. Overall, in my judgement and on the particular facts before me I am satisfied that on the balance of probability, the appeal site comprises one planning unit that is in a sui generis mixed use. My finding in respect to the planning unit is pertinent for all three appeals. Consequently, given my finding there is no need to consider the question of curtilage.”].
• The height of “the building, enclosure or container” does include protrusions such as raised parapet walls, chimneys, etc. [Note: In other words, any such protrusions on an outbuilding are subject to the height limit of E.1(e)]. [Note: This conclusion relates to the (maximum) “height” of the outbuilding, rather than the “height of the eaves” of the outbuilding].
  [Conclusion: The flue on the pitched roof of an outbuilding can not be higher than 4.0m].

October 2024 - Code a01742 (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.