Valued. That’s the word we are having trouble with. In Value judgments we asked how to recognize a ‘valued landscape’ in relation to Paragraph 109 of the NPPF. In Paragraph 70 we meet ‘valued’ again:
Monthly Archives: March 2017
Since glamping is a relatively recent phenomenon it might be helpful to note an inspector’s ruling that glamping pods need to be treated as static caravans.
In (DCS Number 400-014-852) the appellant argued that the proposed pods were not caravans and therefore did not conflict with development plan policy, which presumed against the development of new static caravan sites in the county given that there was already sufficient provision. The inspector disagreed. Whilst pods are not specifically legally defined he agreed with the council that they fall within the statutory definition of a caravan, that is, any structure designed for human habitation which is capable of being moved from one place to another. The appellant had confirmed that the pods would be kept permanently on the site, that they would be ready assembled when delivered and that they would be connected to an electricity supply. To the inspector’s mind the pods were akin to static caravans, notwithstanding their different appearance and their limited living accommodation. The proposed development would therefore be in conflict with development plan policy, he decided.
Taken from a recent appeal decision (DCS Number 400-014-884):-
“A signed and completed S106 Unilateral Undertaking has been submitted by the appellant. It would secure financial contributions from the appellant of £73.65 towards the provision of wheeled bins for the development. The Huntingdonshire Developer Contributions SPD 2011 sets out the requirements and justification for Council to secure contributions towards appropriate householder waste storage containers on development sites. I therefore agree that a contribution would be necessary, directly related, and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development, in accordance with Community Infrastructure Levy Regulation 122, and Paragraph 204 of the Framework.”
Comeuppance – a delightful old word which, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, derives from ‘come up’ in the sense of coming up before a judge or court for judgement.
It seems appropriate to say, then, that an appellant seeking prior approval under Part O of the GPDO for the residential conversion of a building in Essex which had been in unlawful use as a hostel (DCS Number 400-014-790) got their comeuppance when an inspector judged that it was the actual use rather than the lawful use on the relevant date which mattered.
For those of us who thought that the decision in Oxfordshire County Council v Secretary for State for Communities and Local Government and others  had settled the argument about whether councils are entitled to claim monitoring fees in relation to Section 106 agreements, the inspector’s decision in (DCS Number 200-006-210) makes discomfiting reading.
….is a phrase “used to convey that something is drearily predictable or familiar”, according to Google. With this definition in mind an inspector dealing with a flawed enforcement notice directed at storage containers in Dorset could not have been blamed for feeling that the task before him was just a bit same old, same old.
A council in Devon has had costs awarded against it after mistakenly refusing prior approval for the conversion of a Class B8 storage building to a dwelling (DCS Number 400-014-711).
Following the Planning Inspectorate’s apology to Richmond upon Thames council for inconsistent decision-making we are keeping a close eye on inspectors’ conclusions in respect of the requirement for affordable housing contributions on small sites.
Q When is a replacement not a replacement?
A When it’s not in the same place
A proposal to demolish an outbuilding and construct a garage/office/annexe at a house in the green belt in Derbyshire was turned down after an inspector decided that it could not be considered to be a replacement building in the terms of paragraph 89 of the NPPF (DCS Number 400-014-694).
An appellant seeking outline permission for a dwelling adjacent to a sweet factory in west Yorkshire (DCS Number 400-014-654) has enjoyed the taste of success.
An odour assessment undertaken by the appellant reported that barely detectable “delightful” scents were experienced within the site boundary. The factory and the council disputed the findings of the report, however, the factory saying that the odour could be a lot stronger than reported and that strong smells were noticed throughout the town.