If you are looking for a way to maximize householder permitted development rights a recent appeal case in Kent (DCS Number 400-018-680) might be of interest. In this case an inspector granted a lawful development certificate for an underground games room and swimming pool, deciding that the works comprised permitted development.
Monthly Archives: April 2018
An interesting ruling on the intention of Class O of the GPDO with regard to noise impacts has come up in a recent appeal decision (DCS Number 400-018-679).
This case involved a prior approval application for the change of use of the upper floors of a building in west London from office use to 30 flats under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class O of the GPDO. The inspector identified the main issue as being whether the proposal would provide adequate living conditions for its intended occupiers by way of the impacts of noise from commercial premises.
An inspector has sided with a council in Cambridgeshire in the reading of a handwritten dimension on a plan relating to planning permission for the change of use of agricultural land to garden land (DCS Number 400-018-548).
In dealing with an enforcement appeal concerning the use of land in Hertfordshire as a wedding venue (DCS Number 200-007-514) an inspector has pointed out the potentially significant implications for green belt policy arising from draft changes to the NPPF.
A replacement dwelling in the green belt in Hertfordshire has been rejected at appeal, an inspector declining to take unexpended permitted development rights into account to justify a larger dwelling (DCS Number 400-018-395).
Taken from a recent appeal decision concerning the retention of a safety net at a golf club in north Wales (DCS Number 400-018-518):
“Playing golf often results in a ball being projected through the air..”
A first floor extension to a building used as a money exchange abutting a railway embankment in the west Midlands has been refused permission by an inspector (DCS Number 400-018-516).
The inspector stated “The proposal would sit in very close proximity to the railway. In the absence of any appropriate structural information it is unclear how the development would impact on the stability of the adjoining railway infrastructure as a result of increased loads that would be created by the development. In the absence of such information, and in light of explicit concerns from Network Rail I cannot be satisfied that the development would not harm the stability and safe operation of the railway.”
A recent appeal case in north Wales addresses an interesting point about the validation of planning applications (DCS Number 400-018-465).
The appellants in this case had made a householder application for ‘alterations and extension to domestic garage to form annexe accommodation’ and they had paid the relevant fee. The planning authority, however, issued a notice of invalidity, with the requirement ‘Please complete and return an application form for planning permission, this type of proposal is not household but the creation of a dwelling, and please note the correct fee is £380.00’.
Q How much harm is less than substantial harm, exactly?
A More than 5.25 per cent.
Paragraph 134 of the Framework states that ‘Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal…’. The question this raises, of course, is how much harm is less than substantial harm? An inspector dealing with an appeal against the refusal of planning permission for 290 dwellings on ridge and furrow earthworks in Leicestershire decided, in the case before him, that it was more than 5.25 per cent of the earthworks (DCS Number 200-007-416).