You don’t have to look far to find an example from Donald Trump’s trail of lawsuits, referred to by President Obama in his farewell address in Philadelphia. An inspector has recently cited Trump International Golf Club Scotland v Scottish Ministers  in declining to issue a lawful development certificate for the retention of a rear extension at a house in east London (DCS Number 400-012-343).
Monthly Archives: July 2016
A couple of appeal decisions have been published recently which confirm that it is possible to obtain in principle approvals for changes of use under the GPDO.
In (DCS Number 400-012-283) the council had refused prior approval for the change of use of a barn to a dwelling on the grounds that insufficient information had been provided. The inspector recorded that Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q indicates that development is permitted consisting of
In upholding an enforcement notice directed at the conversion of a garage in Essex to a one-bedroom bungalow (DCS Number 400-012-281) an inspector has rejected the appellant’s argument that the alleged breach had not occurred because the building had not actually been occupied for residential purposes.
An inspector dealing with an appeal relating to the residential conversion of offices in Leicestershire has determined that a condition on the original consent limiting the building to B1 use was of no effect (DCS Number 400-012-303).
In allowing the change of use of a music shop and an estate agent’s in north London to two flats under the GPDO (DCS Number 400-012-173) an inspector has highlighted the difference in the level of supporting evidence required between the prior notification procedure and the planning application procedure.
An inspector dealing with an appeal against the refusal of permission for a curling rink in Berkshire has ruled that an applicant is still entitled to a free go for a subsequent planning application, even where the fee for an earlier application has been refunded under the Planning Guarantee (DCS Number 400-012-199).
What a waste of human endeavour. An inspector has upheld an enforcement notice requiring the removal of a pair of gates over 1m in height and 2.5m from the highway at a house in Surrey, finding that planning permission was required (DCS Number 400-012-202).
In deciding an appeal against the refusal of outline permission for a development of eight houses in Essex an inspector has concluded that there is no need to make provision for affordable housing despite the council’s claim that the floorspace of the dwellings is likely to be over 1000sqm (DCS Number 400-012-163).
Perhaps it isn’t widely understood that it can happen since it doesn’t happen very often. However, sometimes it does happen; an inspector will delete another inspector’s condition. Appeal case DCS Number 400-012-162 illustrates the point.
In quashing an enforcement notice directed at the alleged use of a terrace house in Greater Manchester as a teaching centre and place of worship an inspector has made an interesting point about where the burden of proof lies (DCS Number 400-012-160).