In dealing with an appeal arising from a dispute over the appropriate fee for a planning application for two safari tents in Herefordshire (DCS Number 400-021-168), an inspector has ruled that they constitute operational development.
Posts By: dcplatest
Edinburgh City Council might have been spending too much time on Instagram.
In dealing with an appeal against the refusal of listed building consent for a loft conversion (DCS Number 400-021-104) the reporter remarked that “The mainly glazed infill of the inward-facing roof valley would not be likely to be visible from the wider conservation area, apart from within the appeal property. Although I note the council’s comment that this aspect of the works would, if undertaken, be seen in aerial photographs, I do not regard that as equating to an adverse effect on the character of the conservation area.”
An enforcement notice requiring the cessation of the use of a dwelling in east London as a house in multiple occupation has been quashed, in light of legislation aimed at the reduction of homelessness (DCS Number 400-021-089).
An appellant seeking permission to replace boarding kennels in the New Forest found that she was not baying at the moon, an inspector deciding that accommodation for 20 dogs would not result in greater disturbance to neighbours than 10 dogs (DCS Number 400-020-838).
Last spring the chief executive of the Planning Inspectorate explained that a large part of the reason for the delay in the handling of planning appeals was “the unexpected receipt of more than 1000 prior approval appeals for phone kiosks”. Here on the Blog we remarked that the interest in phone kiosks arises largely from their function as structures for the display of advertisements, and we suggested a solution to the problem (Whatever happened to ….)
In dealing with an appeal against the refusal of retrospective planning permission and listed building consent for alterations to a house in Tyneside (DCS Number 400-020-918) an inspector has corrected a couple of common misconceptions.
Possibly, the council involved in this appeal case (DCS Number 400-020-987) has been caught up in the current craze for decluttering.
The case relates to a fruit and vegetable shop in Bedfordshire. The appellant was objecting to the imposition of a condition attached to planning permission for two display units on the forecourt. The condition required the removal of an existing wooden display structure within two months of the permission.
Here is an example of the simplified and improved permitted development system (DCS Number 400-020-975). This comes from an appeal against the refusal of a lawful development certificate for extensions to a terrace house in north London, in which the inspector referred to the various elements of the proposal as A, B and C.
If you think about it, the Prince of Denmark had a rather odd name.
Setting aside such musing, readers will be aware that Paragraph 145 of the NPPF states that “A local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in the Green Belt.” Exceptions to this include, at 145 e), “limited infilling in villages”. In a recent appeal against the refusal of planning permission for four houses amongst a group of dwellings in Staffordshire, however, the main parties disputed whether the group was a village or a hamlet (DCS Number 400-020-890).
An inspector has deleted a condition on a permission for an extension to a house in north London, finding it unreasonable because it sought to nullify an extant permission (DCS Number 400-020-704).