There have been reports in the press that the Prime Minister’s Chief Adviser, Dominic Cummings, has pledged to overhaul the nation’s ‘appalling’ planning system. Well, the man might lack a lot of things but he certainly doesn’t lack chutzpah. And, ….we are saying this very quietly…., the system could do with looking at. Even planning inspectors recognize it; note the inspector’s remark in the following paragraph, taken from a recent appeal against the refusal of a certificate of lawfulness for a summerhouse at a house in Dorset (DCS Number 400-026-441).
Monthly Archives: June 2020
What kind of material operations might be accepted as sufficient to constitute the implementation of a planning permission? Well, drainage works, as evidenced by a recent appeal decision (DCS Number 400-026-151).
An inspector has refused to issue a certificate of lawfulness for the use of a children’s nursery in Bournemouth without restrictions, after explaining the effect of the court’s decision in Lambeth LBC v SSCLG & Aberdeen Asset Management, Nottinghamshire CC & HHGL Ltd  (DCS Number 400-026-339).
Lack of adequate visibility at a site entrance will sometimes give rise to the suggestion that a convex mirror would address the shortcoming. However, this view is rarely reflected by a highway authority; highway engineers really really don’t like them. In addition, they are almost never sanctioned at appeal. Here is why (taken from DCS Number 400-026-333):
In a recent post, Court cases on curtilage, we shared a handy paragraph from an appeal decision which set out the leading cases on the identification of ‘curtilage’: Dyer v Dorset CC ; McAlpine v Secretary of State for the Environment ; and Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport, and the Regions v Skerritts of Nottingham .
Overnight guest accommodation provided in a shepherd’s hut in the grounds of a listed hotel in the New Forest would not require planning permission, an appeal inspector has decided (DCS Number 400-026-222).
In Oversimplification we reported an appeal case in which the inspector found that prior approval should not have been refused for a house extension on the grounds that inconsistent information regarding its maximum depth had been provided in the application: the block plan showing one measurement whereas it was stated as being another. Paragraph A.4(2)(b) of Part 1, Class A of the GPDO, he explained, does not require the plan to be drawn to any scale. The plan needed only to indicate the site and show where the proposed extension was to be located, the actual dimensions of the extension were required to be stated in writing under A.4(2)(a), which had been done.
All of an unauthorised 1.8m high fence at a house in Worcestershire will have to be reduced to 1m notwithstanding the appellants’ protest that part of it was lawful (DCS Number 400-026-134).