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:

April 2026 - Code a01937 (2 x appeal allowed):

• For the purposes of A.1(b) and E.1(b), an open-air swimming pool (i.e. not enclosed by a building) does not count towards “the total area of ground covered by buildings [, enclosures and containers]”. [Note: In other words, an open-air swimming pool does not use up some (or all) of the 50% limit].
  [Note: The submitted drawings show that new walls / fences (with height 2.0m) would be erected to the rear and one side of the open-air swimming pool (with a distance of approx 2.4m-2.8m between the edge of the swimming pool and the new walls / fences)].
  [Quote: “The appellant and the Council have reached different conclusions in relation to the ‘50%’ calculation. However, both have included the area of the swimming pool in their calculations. I consider this to be mistaken. It seems to me on a reading of Class E as a whole that the omission of the words “swimming or other pool” in E.1(b) is deliberate, the intention being to exclude these items from the ‘50%’ calculation unless they should be treated in the applicable circumstances as being buildings or enclosures. If they are not to be treated in this way, the Council’s refusal of the applications on the basis of their calculations of site coverage is unsustainable. [...] In this instance, the swimming pool would be an uncovered open-air swimming pool formed by excavating the ground space. It would not be housed in a building or in part of a building or within any structure or erection at all.  [...] The Council’s contention that the swimming pool would be within an enclosure is founded upon the proposal to erect the walls/fences referred to above. There would be two walls/fences, each of them next to and parallel with the existing, lower, fences on the boundaries with adjoining residential properties. As a matter of fact and degree, I do not consider that they would enclose the swimming pool since they would not surround it and their function would be to safeguard the privacy of the pool area, the patio and the lawn.”].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular structure does not constitute a “building or enclosure” for the purposes of Class E.
  [Note: The structure is an open-air swimming pool.  The submitted drawings show that new walls / fences (with height 2.0m) would be erected to the rear and one side of the open-air swimming pool (with a distance of approx 2.4m-2.8m between the edge of the swimming pool and the new walls / fences).].

March 2026 - Code a01936 (appeal dismissed):

• Where part of an extension is within 2m of a boundary, then the 3m eaves height limit of A.1(i) applies to the entire extension (i.e. not only to that part of the extension that’s within 2m of the boundary). (*)

March 2026 - Code a01935 (appeal dismissed):

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

March 2026 - Code a01934 (1 x appeal dismissed, 1 x 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.