Not so long ago we reported an appeal case in which an inspector ruled that a restaurant was a community facility (High on the hog). In that case (DCS Number 400-022-010) the inspector decided that the loss of the restaurant to residential use “…would have a harmful impact on the ability of the community to meet its day to day needs.”
Monthly Archives: August 2019
A recent appeal against the refusal of planning permission for eight houses in rural Kent (DCS Number 400-022-777) has allowed us a glimpse of the future, the day when, just maybe, our travel habits are not polluting the atmosphere with noxious gases. Whilst the inspector dismissed the appeal, it is interesting to note the direction of travel.
From time to time there is debate about the size of a planning unit so we thought it might be useful to report a recent appeal case in which the subject was addressed (DCS Number 400-022-610). In this case the inspector ruled that an enforcement notice which required the cessation of motocross activities at a former quarry in south Yorkshire was not defective, despite the appellant’s claim that the planning unit was not identified correctly.
Since when has it been the appellant’s responsibility to educate a planning inspector about planning law?!
In Open all hours? we reported an appeal case in which the inspector cited the relevant planning legislation concerning electronic communications (DCS Number 400-016-112). He recorded that “Paragraph 2(7) of Schedule 1 to the Town and Country Planning (Electronic Communications) (England) Order 2003 and Article 2(9) of the GPDO are clear”….”that communications received outside of normal business hours shall be taken to have been received the next working day. Furthermore, section 336(4A) of the 1990 Act indicates that an electronic communication, used for the purposes of giving a notice, shall be taken to have been received the following day if received outside of that person’s business hours.”
A pizza outlet in west London which is prohibited from delivering takeaways by motor vehicle has overcome the constraint by means of some imaginative thinking (DCS Number 400-022-916).
The appeal inspector noted that the condition in dispute did not prevent deliveries from taking place from the premises but restricted the use of motor vehicles which were defined to include motorcycles, mopeds and motor scooters. The appellants sought to use electrically assisted pedal cycles.
Economic and social changes have meant that these days children very often grow up, leave the family home to lead independent lives….and then come back again.
An interesting appeal case concerning an agricultural occupancy condition on a dwelling in Yorkshire sought to exploit this phenomenon (DCS Number 400-022-725). The condition stated that the occupation of the dwelling was limited to a person solely or mainly employed in agriculture in the locality, including any dependants, or a widow or widower of such a person. The appellants sought a certificate of lawfulness on the basis that the dwelling had been occupied in breach of the condition by a financially independent child for over ten years.
In most cases, a council which fails to provide a statement at appeal is not doing itself any favours. Conclusions about the strength of the council’s case and/or commitment to the decision may well be drawn. That said, there really isn’t any point in reinventing the wheel, and requiring an inspector to read much the same information twice, if a comprehensive committee report already exists.