Readers might wish to note the detailed consideration given by an inspector to an appeal against the refusal of listed building consent for the replacement of a bay window in a Dorset cottage.
Monthly Archives: October 2016
In Vertical Sky Component – an explanation the Blog explained how VSC is calculated. Just as an example, here it is in practice in a recent appeal decision relating to a flat block extension in east London (DCS Number 400-013-364)
In quashing an enforcement notice aimed at the unauthorised change of use of a travel agency (Class A1 use) in central London to a mixed use comprising a retail shop and a café/restaurant an inspector recognised the leisure aspect of shopping trips (DCS Number 400-013-348).
An inspector has upheld an enforcement notice requiring the removal of an unauthorised shopfront in a north London conservation area (DCS Number 400-013-303), notwithstanding there being no requirement in the notice to replace it.
An inspector has allowed an appeal against the refusal of planning permission for a house within 5km of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area, after accepting the appellant’s clever solution to dealing with the restrictions applying to CIL contributions towards Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) (DCS Number 400-013-309).
Whilst we are on the subject of definitions, here is an appeal case in which the inspector considers the definition of a nightclub (DCS Number 400-013-247).
Planning permission had been granted for the use of edge-of-centre premises in west Yorkshire as an internet lounge and sandwich bar. An enforcement notice alleged an unauthorised material change of use to uses including a nightclub and shisha lounge.
Rewind to the 150-year anniversary of the publication of Alice in Wonderland in 2015 and you have a suitable setting for appeal case (DCS Number 200-005-666) in which the inspector considered the definition of ‘major development’.
An appeal decision relating to the refusal of outline permission for “exemplar sustainable self-build development” in Cornwall shows that it takes more than vocabulary to gain permission for housing outside a development boundary (DCS Number 400-013-227).
“Planning conditions should only be imposed where they are necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects”, says Paragraph 206 of the NPPF.
There has been head-scratching here at the DCP Blog about how to recognise a ‘valued landscape’ (Paragraph 109 of the NPPF). Valued by whom?
In Leckhampton, Cheltenham (DCS Number 200-004-992) the secretary of state agreed with his inspector that the site, whilst not designated, had its own intrinsic charm which gave it value and that it was a locally valued landscape.