Here’s an interesting remark from an inspector who was determining an appeal against an enforcement notice requiring the removal of a timber play structure from the garden of a house in Lincolnshire (DCS Number 400-027-704).
Monthly Archives: September 2020
Given the current global pandemic, an inspector found it appropriate to cut some slack for a local planning authority, refusing to award costs against it for failing to determine a change of use planning application within the requisite period (DCS Number 400-027-724).
The quality of planning applications can range from commendable to criminal but there is really never any need for this:
“In response to the Council’s punitive refusal reasons…”
(DCS Number 400-027-567).
Readers might share our disquietude at the following paragraph, taken from an appeal decision relating to the refusal of planning permission for a 60-bedroom care home in Cheshire (DCS Number 400-027-262).
Planning permission has been granted at appeal (DCS Number 400-027-526) for the change of use of a first floor tattoo studio in Norwich to temporary visitor accommodation despite concerns about the small size of the property.
A sculpture of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II’s head profile made from crystals and set within a glass panel measuring 5.6 metres tall by 3 metres wide has been refused a second temporary permission.
We all know that a sitting room is a habitable room and that a bathroom is not a habitable room. But what about a study? According to one inspector, determining an appeal in north London (DCS Number 200-009-576), a study in a neighbouring property could not be assessed as a habitable room: