dcplatest | DCP Latest

The law is an ass

Posted May 27th, 2020 by dcplatest & filed under Opinion.

‘ “If the law supposes that,” said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, “the law is a ass — a idiot.” ‘

Charles Dickens’ beadle was probably not the first to call the law an ass and he undoubtedly won’t be the last. Nevertheless, whatever at times we might think of planning law, it is up to us to apply it in letter and spirit. Whether an inspector did quite that when he allowed an appeal (DCS Number 200-009-472) against a council’s refusal to remove an agricultural occupancy condition from a bungalow in north Yorkshire is open to question.

Court cases on curtilage

Posted May 21st, 2020 by dcplatest & filed under Cut-out-and-keep.

Just thought we would share this handy paragraph from a recent appeal decision (DCS Number 400-026-036) on the definition of a curtilage.

“In terms of what can be reasonably considered as residential curtilage it was held in Dyer v Dorset CC [1989] that curtilage constitutes a piece of ground attached to a dwellinghouse and forming one enclosure with it; thereby the area attached to and containing a dwellinghouse and its outbuildings. The case of McAlpine v Secretary of State for the Environment [1995] did not depart from the above judgement save for the mention of it being constrained to a small area around a building, whilst the Court of Appeal in Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport, and the Regions v Skerritts of Nottingham [2000] decided that the definition of a curtilage in relation to a building must remain a question of fact and degree in each case.”

Read more on Court cases on curtilage…

A piece of the breach

Posted May 19th, 2020 by dcplatest & filed under Cut-out-and-keep.

A recent appeal decision tells us that a breach of a planning condition on part of a site for a sufficient period to result in immunity from enforcement does not result in immunity over the entire site (DCS Number 200-009-392).

The way forward?

Posted May 18th, 2020 by dcplatest & filed under Current thinking.

Readers will be aware that the housing secretary, Robert Jenrick, has urged councils and the planning inspectorate to make more use of digital technology during the current lockdown to ensure that the planning process continues to operate effectively in order to support economic recovery. Here on the Blog we have been looking out for procedural changes which might achieve this objective.

A masquerade

Posted May 14th, 2020 by dcplatest & filed under Compare and Contrast.

An inspector has declined to issue a certificate of lawfulness for development at the rear of a house in north London, ruling that it would be an extension masquerading as an outbuilding (DCS Number 400-025-329).

The unvarnished truth

Posted May 5th, 2020 by dcplatest & filed under Quirks of the system.

Tricky things, nail bars. In a previous blog, On the nail, we reported an appeal case in which an inspector declined to issue a certificate of lawfulness for the use of a vacant shop as a nail bar on the grounds that they fall within different use classes. In Nailed it, meanwhile, the inspector, whilst recognising that nail bars are a sui generis use, allowed the change of use of a shop to a nail bar on the grounds that they are comparable uses equally appropriate to a shopping area.

The future’s Orange

Posted May 1st, 2020 by dcplatest & filed under Cut-out-and-keep.

Actually, it’s not, now that Orange UK is firmly in the past and the advert featuring the company’s long-running strapline has been taken off the telly. Nevertheless, the company has left a legacy in Orange Personal Communications Services Ltd. & Ors, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Islington [2006]. This court judgment featured in a recent appeal against the refusal of outline planning permission for the redevelopment of a former Co-op store in the east Midlands with nine dwellings (DCS Number 400-025-646).

The new normal?

Posted April 28th, 2020 by dcplatest & filed under Current thinking.

We have seen a good number of appeal cases relating to lawful development certificates where inspectors have issued decisions without the benefit of a site visit. This might be unsurprising, given that such appeals turn on the facts of the case rather than matters of planning judgement. In a new development, we now have an example of a section 78 appeal which the inspector has decided without a site visit (DCS Number 400-025-725).

Out on the streets

Posted April 27th, 2020 by dcplatest & filed under Current thinking.

In Unprecedented times we flagged up an enforcement appeal decision in which the inspector accepted that an uncertain situation currently exists with regard to Covid-19 but nevertheless reasoned that under s173A of the Act the council had the power to extend the time for compliance with the notice. In a further enforcement appeal relating to an unauthorised house in multiple occupation in north London (DCS Number 400-025-551), however, the inspector extended the compliance period, recognising that the effect of the notice would be to deprive the tenants of their homes at a time when they would be unlikely to find somewhere else to live.

Tact and discretion

Posted April 21st, 2020 by dcplatest & filed under Something to make you smile.

Planning inspectors are, of course, public servants and must always treat appellants with the utmost courtesy and respect. On occasion that must prove quite a challenge. We rather admired the following phrasing, found in an appeal against an enforcement notice directed at the unauthorised residential conversion of a pub in Oxfordshire (DCS Number 400-025-507).

Posts By: dcplatest