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:

February 2026 - Code a01918 (split decision):

• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular piece of land is not within the “curtilage” of the property.
  [Note: The land is approx 34m-51m from the main house, is at a lower level, and is separated from the main house by “mature shrubs/hedgerow and trees”].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where a proposed hard surface (under Class F) was intended to be used in connection with a structure that would not be lawful, but the Inspector concluded that the proposed hard surface could still be used in connection with a different structure that is lawful.
  [Note: Although the proposed outbuilding would not be lawful, the Inspector concludes that the proposed hard surface could still be used in connection with the existing outbuilding (which is in a similar position)].
  [Quote: “I recognise that the proposed hardstanding has been designed to facilitate and be associated with the proposed garage/store. However, it could also serve and be associated with the existing detached garage on the site. It would therefore be for a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse and thus falls within the provisions of Class F.”].
• 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 submitted drawing includes the annotation “existing driveway extended using sustainable drainage system”].
  [Quote: “The appellant’s drawing states that the hard surface area would incorporate a sustainable drainage system and would thus comply with the conditions set out in Class F.2. The limitations of Class F.1 are not applicable to this development.”].

February 2026 - Code a01917 (appeal dismissed):

• Where the front wall of a side extension does not extend beyond the line of the principal elevation (i.e. in accordance with the forward projection limit of A.1(e)), but the eaves / flat roof / guttering / soffit / fascia / etc of the extension overhang this line, then this is not permitted development. (*)
  [Note: The eaves overhang this line by approx 0.3m, and in addition the eaves slightly wrap-around the front/side corner of the main house by approx 0.3m].

February 2026 - Code a01916 (appeal dismissed):

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

February 2026 - Code a01915 (appeal dismissed):

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

February 2026 - Code a01914 (appeal dismissed):

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

February 2026 - Code a01913 (appeal allowed):

• [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.