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:

November 2025 - Code a01877 (appeal allowed):

• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that the following materials are “of a similar appearance” to one-another:
  - UPVC windows (with 12 and 9 panes) versus timber windows (with 12 and 9 panes).
  [Note: On the proposed main house versus on the existing main house (respectively)].
• The conditions about materials (i.e. A.3(a) and B.2(a)) do affect the subdivision of windows (e.g. by transoms, mullions, glazing bars, etc). (*)
  [Note: This appeal decision implies (rather than states) this conclusion].
  [Quote: “The proposed uPVC windows, compared to the existing windows, would be the same colour, the frames would be similar in size, and they would be similarly subdivided into small panes. The opening method would be different but, as a matter of planning judgement, this would not be a significant change. [...]  The materials to be used in the proposed exterior work, the replacement of three timber windows with uPVC windows, would have a similar appearance to those used in the construction of the exterior of the existing dwellinghouse.”].

November 2025 - Code a01876 (appeal dismissed):

• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular piece of land is within “the curtilage of a listed building”.
  [Note: The land is approx 14m-17m from the listed building].
  [Quote: “[The application site] is the middle dwelling in a terrace of three dwellings that is a listed building, [...]. The curtilage of a building is defined as any area of land that is around and associated with the building. Under this definition it must be concluded that the rear garden of the appeal dwelling is its curtilage. The proposed garden room/artist studio would be for a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling but it would be erected within the curtilage of the listed building. The proposed garden room/artist studio is not therefore development permitted under Class E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the GPDO. The proposed garden room/artist studio is development for which planning permission is required to be granted by the Council.”].

November 2025 - Code a01875 (appeal dismissed):

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

November 2025 - Code a01874 (appeal dismissed):

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

November 2025 - Code a01873 (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.