We are only human and there can be no doubt that memory fades over time. An inspector dealing with an appeal against an enforcement notice alleging the storage of equipment and materials relating to a plant hire and construction business operating from a farm in Worcestershire (DCS Number 200-010-690) has cited court cases which recognise this phenomenon.
Monthly Archives: February 2022
A recent appeal decision has reminded us that Shrove Tuesday falls on 1 March this year:-
In assessing the effect of a proposed solar farm on the rural landscape in Nottinghamshire (DCS Number 200-010-679), the inspector judged that during the construction period and the first year the scale of effect would be major and would have a significant adverse effect on landscape character. However, given the relatively short construction period, some 26 weeks, and at a time when the mitigation planting would be young, he considered that such adverse impacts could not be avoided. Thus, the weight he attached to these early effects was limited, reasoning that, ‘as François Athanase de Charette de la Contrie is reputed to have said, “…you cannot make an omelette without breaking a few eggs”. ‘
An appellant in Hertfordshire has failed to convince an inspector that the conversion of a single dwelling to its previous use as two cottages did not required planning permission (DCS Number 400-034-174).
Following on from the International Olympic Committee’s acceptance of Big Air as a competitive sport at the Beijing Winter Olympics we are pleased to report that the planning system has also validated a new high-injury-risk sports discipline: dog agility.
In determining an enforcement appeal relating to a former pub in east London the inspector ruled on the status in planning of property guardians (DCS Number 200-010-647).
The inspector recorded that the use of property guardians is a relatively new but popular means of providing security for empty buildings that would otherwise be vulnerable to squatters. The property guardians must live in the building as they find it without making any substantial changes and provide on-site security. In return they pay a below-market rent to the security company. The arrangement is intended to be a temporary solution until a viable use is found for the building.
Taken from the ‘Appearances’ list from the recent appeal relating to the expansion of Bristol Airport (DCS Number 200-010-636):-
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FROM THOSE WISHING TO APPEAR BUT UNABLE TO DO SO – Roary the Dinosaur – on behalf of extinct dinosaurs.
In determining an appeal (DCS Number 400-034-145) against the refusal of planning permission for nine houses on land identified as public open space on a site previously granted outline permission for up to 75 houses in Essex, an inspector found that the site had been artificially subdivided and as such the proposal did not make adequate provision for affordable housing.