The "GPDO Part 1 (All Classes) - LDC Appeal Decisions" document has been updated to include 5 additional appeal decisions relating to householder permitted development legislation, for which the conclusions are as follows:

October 2025 - Code a01862 (appeal allowed):

• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular piece of land is within the “curtilage” of the property.
  [Note: The land is part of a “gravelled driveway”, which the Inspector states “has no area demarcated for parking for any of the three properties”].

October 2025 - Code a01861 (appeal dismissed):

• 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. (*)
• 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). (*)
• In an application for an LDC, the burden of proof is firmly on the applicant.
• This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector assessed the effect of the proposed development on a European site or a European offshore marine site (e.g. with reference to “The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017”) and concluded that this would be unacceptable.
  [Quote: “Taking all matters raised into account, it has not been shown, on the balance of probabilities, that the proposed change of use [from C3 to C4] would not have had a likely significant effect on the SPA [Special Protection Area]. Furthermore, on account of the proximity of the site to the SAC [Special Area of Conservation] and the opportunities for protected bat species to be present within roof spaces, it has also not been shown on the balance of probabilities that the dormer extension would not have been likely to have had a significant effect on the SAC. The appellant has not therefore provided sufficient evidence to show it is likely that the proposed change of use and the dormer extension could have been instituted or begun on the date of the application without needing to satisfy Regulation 77 of the Habitats Regulations, in accordance with the planning permissions granted by Article 3(1) of the GPDO. It is claimed that rooflights and dormer extensions are regularly assessed by Councils without being subject to developer contributions to act as mitigation for any likely significant effects on European sites, and that the majority of lawful C4 HMOs have not been subject to the same demands. It is also claimed that the Council has only referred to Regulations 75 to 78 of the Habitats Regulations following pressure from a Councillor. Be that as it may, Article 3(1) of the GPDO is clear that the planning permissions relied upon by the appellant are subject to those regulations, and a certificate can only be issued under section 192(2) of the Act if information is provided to show a use or operations would be lawful if instituted or begun at the time of the application. The fact that the Council has issued a ‘no further action report’ in respect of the development carried out does not lead me to any different views on the lawfulness of the development proposed on the date of the application.”].

October 2025 - Code a01860 (appeal dismissed):

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

October 2025 - Code a01859 (appeal dismissed):

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

October 2025 - Code a01858 (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.