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:

March 2026 - Code a01929 (appeal allowed):

• This appeal decision provides an example of the types of factors that should be taken into consideration when determining which elevation is “the principal elevation”.
• Where a proposed extension (under Class A) would be attached to an existing extension, then this appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that the phrase “[the] total enlargement” applies to only the proposed extension. [Note: In other words, only the proposed extension should be assessed against those limitations and conditions of Class A that apply to “[the] total enlargement”]. (*)
  [Note: In my opinion, this appeal decision is questionable].
  [Note: The proposed rear extension (with length approx 3.1m) would be attached to the side wall of the existing rear extension (with length approx 11.8m)].
  [Quote: “Class A(ja) addresses the situation where “any total enlargement (being the enlarged part together with any existing enlargement of the original dwellinghouse to which it will be joined)” would exceed the relevant limits. The key question is whether the proposed addition is joined to an existing enlargement in a manner that increases the extent of the rearward projection from the original rear wall (i.e., a linear “add-on” to the back), or whether it is a side-abutting junction which does not extend the rearward depth of projection. The [proposed] extension adjoins the eastern side of the 2003 [north] rear extension but does not add to its rearward length. In other words, the proposal does not create a longer single rear projection; it is a lateral addition alongside the earlier [2003] enlargement. In such circumstances, while the two elements may meet, they do not constitute a single total enlargement for the purposes of extending the rearward projection measured under Class A(f)/(g). The relevant limit under Class A(g) is therefore properly assessed only against the proposed extension’s own projection and height, both of which fall within the allowable thresholds as set out above.”].

March 2026 - Code a01928 (appeal allowed):

• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular structure does not constitute a “verandah, balcony or raised platform”. [Note: In other words, such a structure is not prevented by the limitations about balconies (i.e. A.1(k), B.1(e), and E.1(h))].
  [Conclusion: A flat surface (“paving”) on one side of an outbuilding, with area (approx) 7.5m x 1.75m = 13.1m2, and covered by the approx 1.75m overhang of the roof, is NOT a “verandah”].

March 2026 - Code a01927 (appeal allowed):

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

March 2026 - Code a01926 (appeal allowed):

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

March 2026 - Code a01925 (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.