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 a01946 (appeal dismissed):

• An original side wall that has been (entirely) removed still constitutes “a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse”. (*)
  [Note: Relates to the side wall of an original (part-width) single storey rear projection].
  [Quote: “It does not matter, for the purposes of interpreting paragraph A.1(j)(iii) that the rear projection would be demolished as part of the works. The paragraph is deliberately written to the effect that the original dwellinghouse is the basis against which a proposal is considered. Thus, if the rear projection forms part of the original dwellinghouse its side wall would amount to a side wall of the original dwelling and the proposal would extend beyond it.”].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular structure is “original”.
  [Note: Relates to A.1(j) of the GPDO 2015].
  [Note: The structure is a (part-width) single storey rear projection].
  [Quote: “No definitive evidence is available as to whether the rear projection was part of the building as constructed or as it stood on 01 July 1948. However, the Council has referred to a 1968 Ordnance Survey based map which appears to be an old “plotting sheet” onto which planning applications were marked for record keeping in the pre-digital age. The fact that identical rear projections are shown on the appeal property and the attached “mirrored” semi-detached dwelling is indicative that the feature formed part of the original design. Moreover, such projections are extremely common on Council houses of that era, containing space for a coal shed or maybe an outside toilet in some circumstances. For those reasons it seems highly likely to me that the projection was part of the original dwellinghouse. The fact that there was no connecting doorway into the dwelling does not discount the structure from forming part of the original dwellinghouse. The definition at Article 2 of the GPDO does not require such a connection. Even if used for a utilitarian function it formed part of the “building” as constructed and existing on 01 July 1948, on the balance of probability.”].
• The side wall of an original (part-width) rear projection (i.e. the side wall facing the infill area) is “a wall forming a side elevation”. (*)
  [Note: The original rear projection is single storey].
• For example, an extension to the side of an original (part-width) rear projection where the extension has a width greater than half the width of the original house is not permitted development. (*)
• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a relatively short width of wall is “a wall forming a side elevation”. (*)
  [Note: The wall is single storey, and has width approx 1.7m].

April 2026 - Code a01945 (appeal dismissed):

• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that two sets of works were undertaken as a single operation (i.e. rather than as separate operations).
  [Conclusion: Hip-to-gable roof extension and rear dormer single operation with two-storey rear extension].
• This appeal decision states, or implies, that when assessing whether two sets of works were undertaken as a single operation (or separate operations), it is a material factor as to whether one set of works was substantially completed before the other set of works was started.
• Where development is undertaken as a single operation, then it is not possible for part of the development to be permitted development and the other part to be granted planning permission by the Council. (*)
  [Note: This appeal decision implies (rather than states) this conclusion].
• Permitted development rights do not apply where the existing building or use is unlawful. (*)
  [Quote: “Secondly, it is settled case law that a building must be substantially completed for permitted development rights to become available. For the reasons set out above, the evidence before me suggests that on the balance of probability that was not the case here. It inexorably follows that if [the 2024] planning permission 23/00746/FUL was not lawfully implemented, which on the balance of probabilities appears to be the case, then those extensions (and therefore the building as a whole) were not lawful on the date that the LDC application was made. Article 3(5)(a) of the GPDO states that permitted development rights do not apply to unlawful buildings. On that basis alone, for the reasons set out above it is more likely than not that the addition/alteration of the roof proposed in the LDC would not have been lawful on the date that the LDC application was made.”].

April 2026 - Code a01944 (appeal dismissed):

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

April 2026 - Code a01943 (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.