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 2025 - Code a01841 (appeal allowed):

• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular hard surface should be assessed against Class F (i.e. rather than Class A or Class E).This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular hard surface should be assessed against Class F (i.e. rather than Class A or Class E).
  [Note: This appeal decision implies (rather than states) this conclusion].
  [Note: The surface is permeable paving].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular hard surface does comply with the porous requirement of F.2. [Note: In other words, either 1) the hard surface is made of porous materials, or 2) provision is made to direct run-off water from the hard surface to a permeable or porous area or surface within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse].
  [Note: The surface is “permeable paving”].
  [Quote: “Here, the area to be hard surfaced is between the principal elevation of the dwellinghouse and a highway and has an area in excess of 5 square metres. Therefore, to be permitted development, it has to be demonstrated that the development would accord with condition b) of Class F. [...] In this regard, the Appellant submitted drawing HR PA 01A, entitled ‘Location plan and site plan’. This showed the area which is proposed to be used for parking annotated with “The entire site frontage is to be fully hard surfaced with permeable paving”. Guidance on the interpretation of the terms of Class F can be found in the Government’s ‘Permitted development rights for householders - Technical Guidance’, September 2019. After rehearsing the terms of Class F it refers readers to another document, ‘Guidance on the permeable surfacing of front gardens’, September 2008, produced jointly with the Environment Agency. Section 7 of the 2008 Guidance is a Glossary, in which definitions of relevant words and terms is given. A ‘porous surface’ is defined as being “a material that has a lot of fine holes throughout that allows water to pass through it eg gravel, asphalt and grassed surfaces”. A permeable surface is defined as “any surface that allows water to soak through it. The surface can be permeable or porous. The surface made of materials that that allow water to soak through eg porous concrete and asphalt, gravel or from impermeable materials laid with gaps between blocks”. From this, the words “porous” and “permeable” in respect of Class F are interchangeable. Therefore, though the Appellant’s drawing uses the word permeable and Part F requires porous materials, I find that what is proposed would accord with Part F. As the development might be undertaken in any number of ways, it is not, to my mind, necessary to supply details of materials and construction. Class F stipulates a particular approach, and the Appellant has said that that approach will be taken. It is for the Appellant to follow that approach when creating the hardstanding and, should this not be the case, the Council could take enforcement action against the development.”].

August 2025 - Code a01840 (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.