In upholding an enforcement notice directed at the short-term letting of a large house in Warwickshire (DCS Number 400-023-651) an inspector addressed the appellant’s claim that no material change of use had occurred.
Posts By: dcplatest
In On the nail we indicated our view that nail salons and hair salons ought to be in the same Use Class.
In sanctioning the retention of a nail bar in a former retail unit in an east London district centre (DCS Number 400-023-719) the inspector said “Nail bars do not fall within the Class A1 definition of shops and hence are a sui generis use. However, hairdressers are classed as A1 and I consider nail bars to be a comparable use and equally appropriate in a shopping area.”
In upholding a listed building enforcement notice requiring the removal of an extraction flue at a restaurant in a north London conservation area (DCS Number 400-023-844) an inspector plainly thought the development was just awful.
Conservation officers must sometimes wonder why they bother.
Presumably, the point in writing guidance relating to development in conservation areas is to encourage the use of design and materials which respect local character and to discourage the use of those which do not.
Citing an appeal decision made by the secretary of state (DCS Number 100-071-536), an appellant has convinced an inspector that there are circumstances in which development can be allowed in Flood Zone 3.
A recent appeal case (DCS Number 400-023-412) reminds us that civil matters are usually best considered separately from planning matters.
In this case the inspector rejected a south Wales householder’s argument that, in the context of an ongoing boundary dispute, the four-month period given for compliance with an enforcement notice directed at an unauthorised extension was too short. One of the options for the appellant was to modify the building so that it complied with an extant planning permission. She considered, however, that scaffolding would need to be erected on the neighbours’ land and they were refusing to permit this. The inspector recognised that an application under the Access to Neighbouring Land Act 1992 had been made to the courts, hopefully to be heard in conjunction with the boundary dispute issue, but noted that the hearing date had not been confirmed.
Unlike the case in respect of the refusal of planning permission, there is no time limit in which an appeal against the refusal of a lawful development certificate must be made. This is a worthwhile point to note from an appeal decision (DCS Number 400-023-607) relating to the refusal of a lawful development certificate for a general industrial use at a site in Essex:-
A young couple are choosing a diamond engagement ring at a jeweller’s shop in Edinburgh. They step out onto the first floor terrace with the sales assistant, who is carrying a selection of rings and glasses of champagne. It’s late afternoon in winter, the stars are beginning to shine in the sky and the lights have come on at the castle…..
An inspector has granted a lawful development certificate for an outbuilding at a house in west London, having overruled the council on the meaning of ‘required’ (DCS Number 400-023-260).
The inspector recorded that the council had refused the application because it considered the operations would not be permitted by Class E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the GPDO. Class E, he explained, permits the provision within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse of any building required for a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse as such, subject to the detailed limitations set out in E.1. The council had reached its conclusion because the “overall size and scale and intended use” of the outbuilding was “not considered to represent a development for a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse”.
An inspector has granted approval of the details required by conditions attached to a planning permission for the erection of a bungalow in west Sussex, finding no reason not to approve them (DCS Number 400-023-429).