The "GPDO Part 1 (All Classes) - LDC Appeal Decisions" document has been updated to include 6 additional appeal decisions relating to householder permitted development legislation, for which the conclusions are as follows:

July 2025 - Code a01830 (appeal dismissed):

• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that the following materials are not “of a similar appearance” to one-another:
  - external wall insulation (with a brick effect finish) versus bricks.
  [Note: On the proposed walls of the main house versus on the existing walls of the main house (respectively)].

July 2025 - Code a01829 (appeal dismissed):

• This appeal decision provides an example of where a condition (on a previous planning permission) does not (directly) remove permitted development rights, and the Inspector concluded that the development is contrary to this condition.
  [Note: The condition states that “Prior to the first occupation of the houses hereby approved, the car parking spaces indicated on the approved plan shall be constructed and made available for use”, and states that “The spaces shall be retained for car parking purposes thereafter”. The issue is whether this condition applies to an outbuilding].
  [Quote: “I do not find that the appellant’s evidence is sufficiently precise or unambiguous to counter the claim made by the LPA that the proposed outbuilding would be sited on land approved and designated for car parking purposes as part of condition No. 03 of the 1997 Permission. In reaching this conclusion, it is noteworthy that the position of the appeal dwellinghouse on the land now, and relative to the highway, does appear to be reflective of the site layout plan (i.e. drawing No. 01 Rev B dated July 1997) provided to me by the LPA. The position of the dwellinghouse is not reflective of the plan contained within appendix 1 of the appellant’s statement of case. [...] The appeal does not include precise and unambiguous evidence to support any contention that condition No. 03 has been breached for a continuous ten-year period such that, on the balance of probability, no enforcement action could be taken by the local planning authority under section 171(B)(3) of the Act. Given the above, and, on the balance of probability, I find that the evidence is not sufficiently precise to indicate that condition No. 03 of the 1997 Permission no longer has any effect from a planning enforcement point of view. Hence, and, in this regard, I am unable to conclude that on the date of the LDC application the proposed outbuilding would not have been in breach of condition No. 03 of the 1997 Permission. Hence, on the balance of probability, and on the date of the LDC application, the evidence does not support the appellant’s claim that the proposed outbuilding could have been lawfully constructed on the land if instigated or begun on that date.”].

July 2025 - Code a01828 (appeal dismissed):

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

July 2025 - Code a01827 (appeal dismissed):

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

July 2025 - Code a01826 (appeal dismissed):

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

July 2025 - Code a01825 (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.