Every now and then an inspector writes a decision which is quite simply a textbook example of how to approach a particular situation. Here is a good one relating to a log cabin within the curtilage of a dwelling (DCS Number 400-024-865) which you might wish to file and use for reference, should you come across a similar proposal during your own work.
Monthly Archives: March 2020
Class B of Part 2 to Schedule 2 of the GPDO permits the formation, laying out and construction of a means of access to a highway which is not a trunk road or a classified road, where that access is required in connection with development permitted by any Class of Schedule 2 (other than by Class A of Part 2). Article 3(6) of the GPDO states, however, that the permission granted by Schedule 2 does not authorise any development which creates an obstruction to the view of persons using any highway used by vehicular traffic, so as to be likely to cause danger to such persons. But what might constitute an obstruction? In determining an appeal against refusal of a certificate of lawfulness for a vehicular access to a new driveway at a house in Buckinghamshire, an inspector found that the use itself of the access would cause an obstruction (DCS Number 400-024-695).
Caravan sites can sometimes be a bit Spartan so it was perhaps with this in mind that the owner of a Hampshire caravan park decided to create a new classically styled entrance. In upholding an enforcement notice requiring its removal, however, an inspector made it clear that he did not appreciate its design (DCS Number 400-025-298).
While we are on the subject of temporary buildings and structures permitted under Schedule 2, Part 4, Class A of the GDPO (see Further ‘required’ reading), what is meant by ‘adjoining that land’?
An inspector has quashed an enforcement notice requiring the removal of a marketing suite at a care development under construction in south London, after finding it to be permitted development (DCS Number 400-024-944).
The owner of a shisha and dessert lounge in Coventry might be feeling a bit hot under the collar after an inspector refused to sanction the retention of two artificial palm trees at the front of the building, despite the effects of climate change (DCS Number 400-025-155).
The remarks of an inspector dealing with a claim that the continued use of premises near Bristol as an A3 restaurant was lawful remind us that sometimes there is just no substitute for life experience (DCS Number 400-025-114).
When a relationship comes to an end it can be complicated, and our exit from the European Union is no exception. Until everything is settled, then, the Human Rights Act of 1998 remains in place, and a claim that human rights have been breached or are threatened remains a regular occurrence during the course of planning applications and appeals. That being so, it might be useful to file a recent appeal case (DCS Number 400-024-906), in which the inspector gives a neat summary of the relationship between the planning system and human rights legislation.
Sometimes, the warm glow which a planning approval notice brings with it can cool on reading the conditions attached, especially if they are pre-commencement conditions with the potential to hold up the development. In these circumstances, it is worth reflecting on whether they were ever agreed to, as a recent appeal case shows (DCS Number 400-024-751).