dcplatest | DCP Latest

Health and safety gone mad?

Posted July 9th, 2020 by dcplatest & filed under Opinion.

Some 650 metres of quayside railing at a grade II* listed maritime harbour has been approved on appeal at Ramsgate Royal Harbour (DCS Number 400-026-547).

What do you think, is this health and safety gone mad, or is this a prudent undertaking by a responsible local authority? There are no doubt all kinds of rules and regulations concerning public safety, of which planning bloggers might well be unaware, but it seems to us here that the railings will significantly diminish the visual understanding of the operation and historic function of the harbour.

A forlorn hope

Posted July 7th, 2020 by dcplatest & filed under Current thinking.

The residential conversion of a vacant shop on the high street of a Gloucestershire market town has been allowed, an inspector judging that a return to retail use was a forlorn hope (DCS Number 400-026-563).

Whose side are you on?

Posted July 3rd, 2020 by dcplatest & filed under Quirks of the system.

How would you decide which planning approval notice was the authorised version if there were two different versions in existence, both appearing to be legitimate?

This was the question facing an inspector in a recent appeal against the refusal of a certificate of lawfulness for the occupation of a staff dwelling at a caravan park on Dartmoor without complying with a condition restricting occupancy (DCS Number 200-009-504).

Upshifting

Posted July 1st, 2020 by dcplatest & filed under Beat the system.

Tight site and the council is demanding bike storage? Have a look at this appeal case (DCS Number 400-026-507).

The case concerns a planning condition which required secure cycle parking for a minimum of two cycles for each flat at a site in south London. The council’s concerns, the inspector reported, related to the accessibility of the cycle storage at first floor, which would require the transport of bicycles up a flight of stairs, the type of storage, and that it would require vertical lifting of the bicycle into the unit.

A cat’s chance in hell

Posted June 30th, 2020 by dcplatest & filed under Cut-out-and-keep.

A condition which stated that no signage could be erected at a cattery on Merseyside had a cat in hell’s chance, after an inspector found that it did not satisfy the tests for planning conditions (DCS Number 400-026-450).

Read more on A cat’s chance in hell…

Unnecessarily bureaucratic

Posted June 25th, 2020 by dcplatest & filed under Current thinking.

There have been reports in the press that the Prime Minister’s Chief Adviser, Dominic Cummings, has pledged to overhaul the nation’s ‘appalling’ planning system. Well, the man might lack a lot of things but he certainly doesn’t lack chutzpah. And, ….we are saying this very quietly…., the system could do with looking at. Even planning inspectors recognize it; note the inspector’s remark in the following paragraph, taken from a recent appeal against the refusal of a certificate of lawfulness for a summerhouse at a house in Dorset (DCS Number 400-026-441).

Drainage works

Posted June 24th, 2020 by dcplatest & filed under Cut-out-and-keep.

What kind of material operations might be accepted as sufficient to constitute the implementation of a planning permission? Well, drainage works, as evidenced by a recent appeal decision (DCS Number 400-026-151).

Standing conditions

Posted June 22nd, 2020 by dcplatest & filed under Cut-out-and-keep.

An inspector has refused to issue a certificate of lawfulness for the use of a children’s nursery in Bournemouth without restrictions, after explaining the effect of the court’s decision in Lambeth LBC v SSCLG & Aberdeen Asset Management, Nottinghamshire CC & HHGL Ltd [2017] (DCS Number 400-026-339).

A mirror image

Posted June 16th, 2020 by dcplatest & filed under Cut-out-and-keep.

Lack of adequate visibility at a site entrance will sometimes give rise to the suggestion that a convex mirror would address the shortcoming. However, this view is rarely reflected by a highway authority; highway engineers really really don’t like them. In addition, they are almost never sanctioned at appeal. Here is why (taken from DCS Number 400-026-333):

Just can’t get enough

Posted June 12th, 2020 by dcplatest & filed under Cut-out-and-keep.

In a recent post, Court cases on curtilage, we shared a handy paragraph from an appeal decision which set out the leading cases on the identification of ‘curtilage’: Dyer v Dorset CC [1989]; McAlpine v Secretary of State for the Environment [1995]; and Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport, and the Regions v Skerritts of Nottingham [2000].

Posts By: dcplatest