Monthly Archives: April 2021

Making hay

As we all know, the GPDO has all manner of curious quirks. One of them, that it is unnecessary to be making a profit in order to benefit from Class 6 permitted development rights on agricultural land, is illustrated by a recent appeal decision (DCS Number 400-030-532).

Read more on Making hay…


The usual reasons given by householders to justify proposals for enormous outbuildings include the accommodation of snooker tables, gym equipment and home cinemas. A recent appeal decision indicates that the list has now been extended to include home offices (DCS Number 400-030-497).

Read more on WFH…

Not certain

In considering an appeal against the refusal of outline planning permission for three dwellings in south Devon an inspector gave his attention to whether a Grampian condition could be imposed to overcome concern about the effect of the proposed access on highway safety (DCS Number 400-030-526).

Read more on Not certain…

Not long now

A request that the the period of time for complying with an enforcement notice relating to an outbuilding at a Kent cottage should be extended to two years was refused by an inspector who took a more sanguine view about our economic recovery from the pandemic than the appellant (DCS Number 400-030-367).

Read more on Not long now…

No mobile when mobile

An inspector’s conclusion that school children’s use of mobile phones would result in harm to pedestrian safety brought a knowing smile at DCP Blog HQ. 

In dealing with the appeal against refusal of planning permission for two houses on garden land in south Yorkshire, (DCS Number 400-030-386), the inspector noted that access would be by means of an unadopted highway that was primarily a pedestrian and cycle route forming part of a “safe route to school”. She reasoned that whilst the two new dwellings might not create a significant number of vehicular movements in themselves, it would still represent a doubling in the amount of vehicular traffic using the lane. For much of its length the lane was not wide enough to enable vehicles and pedestrians or cyclists to pass safely and, moreover, due to the bends along the lane, forward visibility was often limited. 

Read more on No mobile when mobile…