Before moving too far forward with an amendment to a planning proposal it’s worth remembering that, in planning law, the status of a completed building often differs from that of a partially completed building. The following case in south Wales sets out a bit of relevant case law.
Monthly Archives: June 2018
Perhaps an inspector wasn’t looking on the bright side when he denied advertisement consent for the retention of a painted sea lantern on the front of a tattoo parlour in Dorset, ruling that it harmed the grade II listed building (DCS Number 400-019-044).
If you told the man in the street that a boat floating on water can entail the change of use of land he’d probably think you had a screw loose, but see what you make of the following ruling.
Sometimes the art and science of planning can lie in being able to recognise when something is not quite right. A useful pointer with regard to the assessment of legal evidence can be drawn from a recent appeal against the refusal of a lawful development certificate for the use of adjacent land as a garden extension at a property in County Durham (DCS Number 400-019-049).
It’s high summer so it must be time to talk about holiday cottages….
Notwithstanding his determination that a holiday cottage at a golf club in Bedfordshire was a dwellinghouse, an inspector decided that the necessary period for its residential occupation to become immune from enforcement was ten years rather than four (DCS Number 200-007-562).
An interesting question before an inspector recently was whether the residential conversion of a subterranean water reservoir in Devon would constitute permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class P of the GPDO (DCS Number 400-019-003).
An inspector who extended the period for compliance with an enforcement notice directed at a single storey rear side infill extension at a house in east London (DCS Number 400-018-777) has articulated the considerations relevant to the assessment of personal circumstances.
We hesitate to contradict an inspector but we feel we must comment on a ruling involving three superheroes in Warwickshire. This appeal was against a listed building enforcement notice which required the removal of Batman, Superman and Spiderman from the front elevation of a bar and restaurant (DCS Number 400-018-962). Batman and Superman were standing on a recess above the fascia at first floor level and Spiderman was climbing up the wall.