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:

July 2026 - Code a01980 (appeal dismissed):

• This appeal decision provides an example of where the applicant submitted (or offered to submit) an amended drawing (or other new information) during the appeal process, and the Inspector did not accept this amended drawing. (*)
  [Note: Relates to an application under section 192 (proposed)].
  [Quote: “The appellant sought to submit amended plans in relation to the CLOPUD appeal. Those plans are different to those considered by the Council at the application stage. The plans were notably different in respect of materials, window details, the fenestration in the dormer, cladding materials for the dormer, the addition of a car port to the side of the house and the addition of a side wall and entrance gate. The appellant put that down to the evolution of the scheme which has been constructed differently on the ground to details in the initial plans. However, where an application for a CLOPUD for a proposed development is submitted it relates to the details proposed in the plans at the time the application was made. If the appellant no longer wishes to carry out that development and to ascertain whether a different scheme would be lawful he may withdraw the initial application and submit a revised application to the Council. It is not the purpose of the appeal process to evolve a scheme. The application was considered and determined based on the plans initially submitted and I shall consider the appeal on the basis of those plans.”].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where an application under section 192 (proposed) was assessed on the basis of the hypothetical works that are shown on the submitted drawings (i.e. rather than the actual works that have been carried out on the site). (*)
• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular structure does not constitute a “conservatory” for the purposes of A.3(a).
  [Note: For the proposed single storey rear extension, the submitted drawings show that the side walls would be solid, the rear wall would be approx 65%-70% glazed (including frames), and the roof would be approx 65%-70% glazed (including frames).].
  [Quote: “Nor do I accept that the rear extension is a conservatory, notwithstanding the extent of glazing proposed – conservatories being exempt from the stipulation relating to similar materials. A conservatory is generally a separate room, with glass walls and a glass roof, designed for sitting in and enjoying the sunlight/ daylight. It has a distinct function. In this case, the floorplans clearly show the extension as an addition to the open plan kitchen and lounge area, with the rear wall removed such that the space is a single entity. It is clearly intended as an extension to the main living space as opposed to a conservatory.”].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that the following materials are not “of a similar appearance” to one-another:
  - zinc cladding versus orangish-brown bricks.
  [Note: On the walls of a single storey rear extension versus on the walls of the main house (respectively)].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that the following materials are not “of a similar appearance” to one-another:
  - zinc cladding versus reddish-brown tiles.
  [Note: On the roof of a single storey rear extension, and on the face and cheeks of a rear dormer, versus on the roof of the main house (respectively)].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector discussed the issue of whether the conditions about materials (i.e. A.3(a) and B.2(a)) affect the shape or size of windows, but did not reach a (definite) conclusion about this issue.
  [Quote: “The proposed windows and doors [of the single storey rear extension] are to consist of aluminium frames, with full width bi-fold doors across the ground floor and a wide span of roof lights within the lean-to roof. The shape and width of the windows is much more expansive than the original arrangement of the rear elevation which contained a pair of French doors and two modest windows. That would be contrary to the Technical Guidance referred to above. However, I am slightly cautious about relying on that guidance because I cannot see any stipulation relating to the shape of windows within the text of paragraph A.3(a) of the GPDO itself, or elsewhere within the conditions and limitations. Paragraph A.3(a) requires that the materials used are of similar appearance to the existing dwelling. It seems to me that a window is more than just a material, it is a fundamental design feature of any residential building. Had the intention of the GPDO been to ensure that windows need to be of a similar shape to those in the original dwelling it could easily have stated so within the conditions but it does not do so in clear terms. [...] The proposed windows [of the rear dormer] are also significantly larger than the modest windows of the existing dwelling and would take up much of the rear elevation. That would clearly be contrary to the advice in the Technical Guidance, albeit that I repeat my reservations set out above. However, it is the case that the onus rests with an appellant to demonstrate their case in respect of CLOPUD appeals and no caselaw or any comparable decisions are before me in respect of the interplay between the Technical Guidance and paragraphs A.3(a) and B.2(a) in respect of window size.”].

July 2026 - Code a01979 (appeal allowed):

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

July 2026 - Code a01978 (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.