The "GPDO Part 1 (All Classes) - LDC Appeal Decisions" document has been updated to include 4 additional appeal decisions relating to householder permitted development legislation, for which the conclusions are as follows:

March 2026 - Code a01933 (appeal allowed):

• This appeal decision provides an example of where a condition (on a previous planning permission) does not (directly) remove permitted development rights, and the Inspector concluded that the development is not contrary to this condition.
  [Note: The condition states that “Before occupation two car parking spaces each of a minimum length of 5.5 metres shall be provided for each dwelling in addition to any garage spaces and those car parking spaces shall be kept clear of all obstruction and remain available for car parking thereafter”. The issue is whether this condition applies to the conversion of a garage into “additional living accommodation” (involving the replacement of the garage door with 2 x windows)].
  [Quote: “The dispute between the main parties relates to whether the proposal would be in breach of planning condition No. 03 of planning permission reference No. 93/D29415 which states ‘Before occupation two car parking spaces each of a minimum length of 5.5 metres shall be provided for each dwelling in addition to any garage spaces and those car parking spaces shall be kept clear of all obstruction and remain available for car parking thereafter’ (my emphasis). It is clear from reading the above, that the substance/subject of the planning condition relates to the provision of two car parking spaces. It is those two car parking spaces that are required to be kept clear of all obstruction and to remain available for car parking thereafter. Such control relates to the two car parking spaces and not to any additional garage space. Indeed, the reference to ‘those car parking spaces’ is directly and solely concerned with the provision of the ‘two car parking spaces’. Consequently, and, for these reasons, I conclude that if the proposal had been instigated or begun on the date of the LDC application, it would not have been in breach of planning condition No. 03 of planning permission reference No. 93/D29415.”].

March 2026 - Code a01932 (appeal dismissed):

• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that it is necessary for the materials used for a particular element (e.g. walls, roofs, windows, etc) of the new works to be “of a similar appearance” to the materials used for the equivalent element of the existing house. (*)
  [Conclusion: The face of a rear dormer, and the (set-in) cheek of a rear dormer (on the opposite side to the new gable end), can’t be similar to the walls of the main house].
• This appeal decision states, or implies, that where a roof extension involves building up the flank wall(s) of the main house (e.g. a hip-to-gable roof extension, or a full-width rear dormer, etc), then it is possible for the materials used for the flank wall(s) of the roof extension to be “of a similar appearance” to the walls of the existing house.
  [Conclusion: The new gable end, and the (flush) cheek of a rear dormer (on the same side as the new gable end), can be similar to the walls of the main house].

March 2026 - Code a01931 (appeal allowed):

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

March 2026 - Code a01930 (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.