In More of the same we reported an appeal case (DCS Number 400-015-923) in which the inspector considered the nature of intensification. This was in relation to a caravan site in Hertfordshire. In so doing he cited R (John Childs) v First Secretary of State and Test Valley Borough Council . In a more recent appeal case in Aberdeenshire (DCS Number 400-030-360), again involving caravans, the reporter set out further relevant case law. She also set out a handy formula for dealing with such situations.
Monthly Archives: March 2021
Now that an inspector has sanctioned the retention of a gold-finish shopfront in a secondary retail stretch in southeast London (DCS Number 400-029-908), it must be only a matter of time before the appellant is rich as Croesus.
An inspector has upheld an enforcement notice requiring the cessation of unauthorised airport parking in the Bristol and Bath green belt, unpersuaded by the appellants’ argument that the reversibility of the use rendered it not inappropriate (DCS Number 400-030-218).
It’s amazing the treasure that can be found in planning inspectors’ footnotes.
In refusing an appeal against the redevelopment of a house in Kent with five new dwellings (DCS Number 400-030-179) the inspector found that the failure of the scheme to achieve any reasonable sight splay at the access to the public highway was more than a technical breach. He ruled that to allow the appeal and permit the development would lead to an unacceptable risk to highway safety that must override the several benefits of the proposal and the quality of the architecture and internal layout proposed. Dismissing the appeal, he concluded that it was not a ‘City of Edinburgh’ case, as suggested in the appeal statement. At this point the inspector’s decision directs us to a footnote where we find, quoted, a 1997 ruling from the eminent planning judge, Sir Jeremy Sullivan, which proved highly influential in the development and operation of our current planning system. Here is the inspector’s reference, which will no doubt start to sound familiar as you read towards the end:-
On a housing estate the layout and spaces between buildings can be all-important. In a recent appeal decision (DCS Number 400-030-117) the inspector recognised the value of the space around a corner-plot dwelling on an inter-war estate.
A householder in Bournemouth who appealed against the council’s decision to turn down his proposal for a six foot fence at his property had included in his description of development an explanation of why he wished to erect the fence. “Following the Corona virus lockdown,” he explained, “it flagged up a need for an enclosed family garden.” He wished to provide a safe and secure space for small children and “in addition, provide a barrier between the garden area and pedestrians walking past who may cough and expel droplets into the air.” (DCS Number 400-030-073).
Planning policy often demands a 12-month marketing exercise to test demand when the lifting of a restrictive condition or a change of use is proposed. In a recent appeal, however, (DCS Number 200-009-877) the inspector decided that the period should be extended to take account of lockdown periods during the pandemic.
In dealing with an enforcement appeal concerning timber hoarding at a site in southwest London an inspector pointed out that the relevant permitted development rights do not apply retrospectively (DCS Number 400-029-930).