Posts By: dcplatest

For the birds

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.”

Read more on For the birds…

Problem solved

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 ….)

Read more on Problem solved…


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.

Read more on Decluttering…

Hard sums

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.

Read more on Hard sums…

To be or not to be….

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).

Read more on To be or not to be…….