The Planning Inspectorate does not often exercise its right under section 79(6A)(a) of the Act but it’s worth noting that it will not hold an appeal in abeyance for ever. An appeal relating to the refusal of planning permission for six semi-detached affordable dwellings in north Wales dating from 2015 (DCS Number 400-031-412) provides an example.
Monthly Archives: June 2021
An inspector has granted prior approval for two additional floors on a block of flats in west London after her inspection from the roof of the building revealed that it was detached from its neighbour, in line with GPDO requirements (DCS Number 400-031-420).
Really, this is getting ridiculous.
The residential conversion of a commercial greenhouse in Somerset has been granted prior approval at appeal under GPDO Class Q rights (DCS Number 400-031-389). (A greenhouse?! Yes, really, a greenhouse.)
In determining whether a log cabin within the curtilage of a house in Kent fell within the definition of a caravan, an inspector has set out useful relevant legislation and case law (DCS Number 400-031-296). Here it is:-
In Cut down to size we reported an appeal case in which an inspector refused to sanction the retention of a fence which had been reduced to 2m in height, pointing out that permitted development rights do not apply retrospectively. In a more recent case, on the other hand, an inspector has granted permission for the retention of a fence on condition that it is reduced in height to bring it in line with permitted development limits (DCS Number 400-031-260).
In upholding a listed building enforcement notice directed at the replacement of a window at a 17th century farmhouse in Cheshire with French doors (DCS Number 400-031-136) an inspector rejected the appellant’s argument that the notice should be considered a nullity as it required the installation of a window that would not comply with Building Regulations.
An inspector has rejected a householder’s claim that the application of opaque film to a new window in a side gable qualified it as permitted development (DCS Number 400-031-232).
The appellant argued that the matters alleged in the council’s enforcement notice did not constitute a breach of planning control. The notice, the inspector recorded, attacked a large window. He determined, firstly, that installing the window was a building operation materially affecting the external appearance of the dwelling and falling within the statutory definition of development. He explained that, whilst such an operation can be permitted development, that is conditional on the use of obscure glazing where, as in the case before him, the window is in an upper floor of a wall or roof slope forming a side elevation of the dwelling (GPDO Article 3, Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, condition A.3 (b)).
An inspector did not sugar-coat his finding that a planning authority had been correct to refuse a lawful development certificate for alterations and extensions to provide a loft conversion at a semi-detached house in north London (DCS Number 400-031-137).
In dealing with ‘less than honest’ appellants who were contesting an enforcement notice directed at the conversion of offices in north London to 28 flats (DCS Number 200-010-073) an inspector explained that the four-year rule would not apply only in the case of deliberate deception.