An inspector has decided to take no action on an appeal against a condition requiring a passing bay to be provided on the access to two pairs of semi-detached houses in southeast London, finding that there was no extant planning permission (DCS Number 400-021-543).
Posts By: dcplatest
By contrast with the finding of the inspector in Health concerns 1, another inspector has dismissed an appeal for a block of flats near a noisy road junction in Surrey (DCS Number 200-008-320), finding that the design would “create habitable rooms that would be exposed to unacceptable noise levels and this would be extremely likely to negatively impact upon the health and welfare of occupiers.” In so doing she acknowledged council advice that “there can be hidden impacts resulting from noise upon health, such as, increased adrenaline that has of more recent times been linked with sleep loss and dementia.”
One of the objectives of the planning system, according to Paragraph 8 of the NPPF, is “to support strong, vibrant and healthy communities.” Interesting, then, that an inspector determining an appeal against an enforcement notice directed at the change of use of a shop in Westminster to a shisha lounge (DCS Number 400-021-315) has concluded that “the development will not unduly harm public health”.
Most of us know that whether or not a change of use is a material change of use is a matter of fact and degree, but why do we accept this as conventional wisdom?
An inspector has deleted a condition restricting the occupancy of a barn conversion in the Yorkshire Dales to a person who “in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority” satisfied an identified local housing need, ruling it to be imprecise (DCS Number 400-021-404).
Prior approval for a rear extension to a house in Kent has been granted by an inspector despite the council’s claim that the extent of earthmoving required would require planning permission (DCS Number 400-021-280).
The redevelopment of a house in a southwest London conservation area with a replica building to provide two five-storey dwellings has been rejected, an inspector being unconvinced that the proposal would achieve a satisfactory outcome (DCS Number 400-021-231).
An inspector has deleted planning conditions prohibiting the occupiers of five flats in south-west London from applying for parking permits, giving weight to a parking survey undertaken by the appellants (DCS Number 400-021-138).
A 48-sheet digital advertising display in Leeds has been given a red light (DCS Number 400-021-227). The council, the inspector noted, considered that the main risk to public safety arose from “the potential for the colours within the digital advertisement to cause confusion when viewed in conjunction with the traffic lights, for example were the colours to match on red or amber a driver might be less aware of the need to stop.”
Although achieving high-quality design is a worthy objective we do have to recognise that it can’t always be done, a truth acknowledged by an inspector dealing with an appeal against the refusal of planning permission for a café in two shipping containers in west Yorkshire (DCS Number 400-021-124).