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:

June 2025 - Code a01812 (4 x appeal dismissed):

• It is not possible to issue an LDC for proposed works that would depend on (e.g. be attached to) other works, where the other works have been granted planning permission by the Council but are not substantially complete. [Note: This conclusion assumes that the combined works would not be permitted development]. (*)
  [Note: The proposed outbuildings would be situated on hard surfaces that have been granted PP.  At the time when the application for an LDC under section 192 (proposed) was submitted, the PP works had been granted PP, (possibly) had been begun, but had not been substantially completed].
• This appeal decision states, or implies, that it is not possible for an application under section 192 (proposed) to ask the (hypothetical) question of whether it would be lawful to first substantially complete one set of works granted planning permission by the Council, and then (subsequently) start and complete another set of works under permitted development rights.
  [Note: At the time when the application for an LDC under section 192 (proposed) was submitted, the PP works had been granted PP, (possibly) had been begun, but had not been substantially completed].
  [Quote: “Planning permission was conditionally granted in August 2021 for the demolition of a summerhouse and landscaping works in the rear garden of the appeal property, reference 2021/0984/P. Details required by condition three were subsequently submitted to and approved by the Council. In broad terms, the appellant’s case is that the approved landscaping will be implemented, and the proposed outbuildings erected afterwards. However, and whilst I note the Council’s concerns regarding whether the landscaping is being carried out in accordance with the approved details, the applications relate only to proposed outbuildings and do not seek to establish that the landscaping works have been lawfully implemented. It seems to me that should the landscaping works be completed in accordance with the planning permission, an outbuilding/s falling within the permitted development tolerances, could later be erected on those areas of hard surfacing, or areas not limited by condition five of the permission, provided that they were carried out as separate and discrete acts of development. However, as already set out above, in section 192 cases, the question is whether the proposed operation would be lawful if ‘instituted or begun’ on the date of the application. The proposed outbuildings would, as stated by the appellant, be sited upon hard landscaped areas approved as part of the landscaping plan and are therefore evidently reliant on the completion of the landscaping. The appellant has not sought to establish that the outbuildings could be erected as permitted development without first completing the landscaping, or that the landscaping would constitute permitted development. For certainty, nor do I consider it would since Class E does not expressly permit engineering works. Therefore, for the proposed outbuildings to be considered permitted development, the landscaping works would have to have first been completed in accordance with the planning permission. Since at the date of the application, they had not been completed and indeed were ongoing at the time of my visit, the proposed outbuildings could not have been erected.”].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when assessing two (or more) separate applications for an LDC under section 192 (proposed) for the same property, concluded that each of the applications should be assessed separately.
  [Note: “Appeal A” relates a proposed outbuilding (“pool hall”) with area approx 194m2. “Appeal B” relates to a proposed outbuilding (“gymnasium”) with area approx 77m2. “Appeal C” relates to a proposed outbuilding (“games hall and gallery”) with area approx 185m2. “Appeal D” relates to 2 x proposed outbuildings (“pool filtration and irrigation stores”) with area approx 41m2. The footprint of each of the 5 x proposed outbuildings would not overlap each-another].
  [Quote: “I note the Council’s view that the proposed outbuildings, should be treated cumulatively however, there is no authority provided to support that proposition. The legal opinion submitted by third parties, referred to Ashchurch Rural Parish Council v Tewkesbury Borough Council [2022] EWHC 16 (Admin) however, that case concerned a bridge development that served no purpose absent the wider development. There is in any event, no need to consider this in any detail since the appeals fail for the reason already given. Accordingly, I shall consider the proposed outbuildings individually. In each case the relevant questions are whether the purpose of the proposed outbuilding is incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse as such and, if so, is the proposed outbuilding reasonably required for that purpose.”].

June 2025 - Code a01811 (appeal allowed):

• This appeal decision provides an example of where an application under section 192 (proposed) was assessed on the basis of the hypothetical works that are shown on the submitted drawings (i.e. rather than the actual works that have been carried out on the site). (*)
• 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 application was accompanied by scale plans showing the proposed works, however the Council states in its statement of case that no calculations were provided. These have been included by the appellant within the appeal documents and supplemented by a drawing of the roof alterations with dimensions, which indicate that the combined total volume of the hip to gable extension and rear dormer would be 48.07m3. The appellant’s agent confirms within the final comments that the calculations and drawings provided are correctly stated. The Council has provided screenshots of elevation drawings with dimensions annotated on them, but it is unclear how these were obtained, possibly through scaling off measurements of the drawings. In this light, I find that it would be more appropriate to rely on the submissions of the appellant.”].

June 2025 - Code a01810 (appeal allowed):

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

June 2025 - Code a01809 (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.