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 a01983 (appeal allowed):

• Class D does allow the alteration or enlargement of an existing porch (i.e. as well as allowing the erection of a new porch). (*)
  [Quote: “Here, the proposal is described as an extension to a porch but, in truth, little would remain of the original porch, such that it is tantamount to a new structure. In any event, Article 2 of the GPDO confirms that ‘erection’, in relation to buildings, includes extension, alteration, or re-erection, and it is common ground between the parties that the proposal falls to be considered under Class D, a view I share.”].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular structure (or particular works) should be assessed against Class D (i.e. rather than Class A).
  [Note: Part of the structure would contain a toilet and wash basin].
• For the purposes of Class D, the height of “any part of the structure” does not include relatively minor elements such as flashing, etc. [Note: In other words, any such relatively minor elements on a porch are not subject to the height limit of D.1(c)].
  [Conclusion: The flashing between the mono-pitched roof of a porch and the wall of the main house can be higher than 3.0m].
  [Quote: “It is common ground that all but one of the limitations set out at D.1 are met. The Council’s sole reason for refusal concerns the height of the structure which, it argues, would exceed the 3m limit imposed at D.1(c). The 3m limit is only exceeded if the measured height of the addition includes the flashing where the roof of the porch would meet the front wall of the house. However, the flashing is a thin strip of flexible material designed to seal the join between the roof and the wall and, for all practical purposes, does not add to the height of the structure. Consequently, it seems to me that the highest point of the tiles – what the Council refers to as the ridge height – should be taken as the highest point of the structure for the purposes of Class D. The Council argues that the flashing is part of the structure. It points out that the statutory definition of development includes ‘building operations’ and has also sought support in a dictionary definition of ‘structure’. However, the permitted development rights set out in the GPDO have been designed in order to regulate development for practical purposes, and the assessment of the height of the building must be seen in that context. The flashing has no implications for the actual scale or impacts of the structure. Thus, the measurement here should be taken to the top of the tiling, which is consistent with a straightforward interpretation of the height of the building. The point is most obviously made when looking at the side elevation of the proposed porch, where it can be seen that the flashing does not add to the height of the structure. Thus, I am not persuaded that the 3m limit would be exceeded in this case.”].

July 2026 - Code a01982 (appeal dismissed):

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

July 2026 - Code a01981 (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.