Readers will be aware that inspectors have come to differing conclusions about whether the effect on the street scene ought to be taken into consideration when dealing with prior approval applications for upward extensions. At risk of irritating those who are already thoroughly sick of the muddle that has been engendered by the unclear wording of the GPDO on such extensions, we thought we should report a recent appeal case (DCS Number 400-034-028) in which the inspector was faced with the question as to whether the historic environment should be taken into account.
Monthly Archives: January 2022
Part 20, Class A of the GPDO allows for flat block additions provided that the building was not constructed after 5 March 2018. In deciding an appeal in Reading, however, (DCS Number 400-034-008), an inspector noted that there is no definition within the GPDO of what stage a building needs to be at before it can be considered to be constructed.
Last October we reported an appeal case in Norfolk in which the inspector found that touring caravans could be differentiated from static caravans in planning terms, notwithstanding that they fall within the same legal definition (The same but different). This differentiation has now been endorsed in the High Court, as related by an inspector charged with determining a similar appeal in Dorset (DCS Number 200-010-581).
An inspector has emphasised (DCS Number 400-033-827) that the prior approval process should be attended by the minimum of formalities.
The inspector allowed the appeal, against the refusal of prior approval for the conversion of a barn in Sussex to a Class D2 use under Part 3 Class R of the GPDO, finding that permission was deemed to be granted after the council had failed to determine the application within the requisite period.
An inspector has issued a certificate of lawfulness for airport parking in west Sussex in a decision which demonstrates that, in planning enforcement, there is rarely a second chance to get things right (DCS Number 400-033-913).
The question of how planning permissions ought to be read comes up every so often, as it did in a recent appeal against the refusal of an LDC relating to a dwelling on a farm in Cheshire (DCS Number 400-033-432). In this case the appellants argued that the dwelling had been erected unlawfully, as a result of not being constructed on the approved site. It was also claimed that the dwelling had become lawful due to the passage of time and was not subject to any of the planning conditions imposed on the original permissions. In considering the appeal the inspector helpfully set out the relevant case law so you might wish to file this away for future use. Here goes:-
Happy New Year! After far too many mince pies over Christmas some serious cutting down would be in order here at DCP Blog HQ, so perhaps that’s why this one jumped out:-