Monthly Archives: July 2020

Detective work

Some detective work has resulted in a planning inspector deciding that an extension to a house in Derbyshire would not be inappropriate development in the green belt (DCS Number 400-026-608).

The inspector recorded that Paragraph 145 of the Framework sets out a small number of exceptions to inappropriate development in the green belt. One such exception is the extension or alteration of a building, provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. Local plan policy, he noted, was broadly consistent with the Framework.

Read more on Detective work…

Health and safety gone mad?

Some 650 metres of quayside railing at a grade II* listed maritime harbour has been approved on appeal at Ramsgate Royal Harbour (DCS Number 400-026-547).

What do you think, is this health and safety gone mad, or is this a prudent undertaking by a responsible local authority? There are no doubt all kinds of rules and regulations concerning public safety, of which planning bloggers might well be unaware, but it seems to us here that the railings will significantly diminish the visual understanding of the operation and historic function of the harbour.

Read more on Health and safety gone mad?…

Whose side are you on?

How would you decide which planning approval notice was the authorised version if there were two different versions in existence, both appearing to be legitimate?

This was the question facing an inspector in a recent appeal against the refusal of a certificate of lawfulness for the occupation of a staff dwelling at a caravan park on Dartmoor without complying with a condition restricting occupancy (DCS Number 200-009-504).

Read more on Whose side are you on?…


Tight site and the council is demanding bike storage? Have a look at this appeal case (DCS Number 400-026-507).

The case concerns a planning condition which required secure cycle parking for a minimum of two cycles for each flat at a site in south London. The council’s concerns, the inspector reported, related to the accessibility of the cycle storage at first floor, which would require the transport of bicycles up a flight of stairs, the type of storage, and that it would require vertical lifting of the bicycle into the unit.

Read more on Upshifting…