The "GPDO Part 1 (All Classes) - LDC Appeal Decisions" document has been updated to include 3 additional appeal decisions relating to householder permitted development legislation, for which the conclusions are as follows:

June 2026 - Code a01966 (appeal allowed):

• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular structure is “original”.
  [Note: Relates to A.1(b), A.1(f), and A.1(ja) (with respect to A.1(f)) of the GPDO 2015].
  [Note: The structure is a (full-width) single storey rear projection].
  [Quote: “The nub of the appeal concerns the existing extension. If it is part of the original dwellinghouse then the other issues fall away. ‘Original’ in relation to a dwellinghouse means existing in 1948. The date of the extension is unknown, but there are a number of clues. Firstly, all the dwellings in the terrace have (or had) a similar extension across their full width, but those on the other dwellings have been altered or added to over time. This suggests the single storey extension is older than the other alterations and so must be quite old. I noticed it was constructed of the same stone as the main dwelling and to similar thicknesses of the wall. The walls seemed to be solid and very thick, with no cavity and the back door is lower than would be normal. All this suggests the extension is very much not of recent origin. There are aerial photographs in the Officer’s report from 1947 and 1972. The latter shows the single storey extensions across the back of the houses and possibly the second storey addition at the end house. This 2-storey extension is not visible in 1947 but neither is any detail at the back of the houses due to the shadow. The appellant’s statement has an extract from a pre-first world war map which does appear to show the row of houses all the same depth and all deeper than the two-storey element facing the road, implying they have a single storey extension across all the backs. The agent has scaled the maps using known distances but even so the maps are at a very small scale. None of the evidence is entirely convincing either way but taken altogether I am inclined to believe the single storey rear extension is pre-1948 and so part of the original dwellinghouse and so the proposed extension is permitted development.”].

June 2026 - Code a01965 (appeal dismissed):

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

June 2026 - Code a01964 (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.