Paragraph 79 e) of the NPPF allows for the development of isolated homes in the countryside if the design is of exceptional quality in that it is truly outstanding or innovative.
Posts By: dcplatest
Readers might be aware that the Planning Inspectorate’s latest Procedural Guide now allows for the appeal process to be a hybrid of the inquiry, hearing and written representations procedures. This reflects the greater flexibility provided for in the Business and Planning Act 2020 which contains measures designed to support the economy during the coronavirus pandemic.
In a decision which appears to reflect the current zeitgeist, an inspector has ruled that in making planning decisions, good neighbourliness must be assumed (DCS Number 400-028-265).
The proposal in this case sought to use part of the flat roof of a single storey rear extension at a flat in west London as a balcony enclosed by railings and as a walkway to a spiral staircase providing a means of escape and access to the rear garden.
Here’s one that’s a bit unusual but interesting, nonetheless:
An inspector has deleted the requirement to remove two satellite dishes from a listed building from an enforcement notice affecting a south London pub, as they were outside the control of the appellant (DCS Number 400-028-190).
An Essex council’s imposition of a condition requiring the submission of an ecological enhancement scheme on the reserved matters approval for nine bungalows was no doubt borne of the best of motives. Deleting the condition and awarding costs to the appellant, however, (DCS Number 400-028-159) an inspector pointed out that Planning Practice Guidance is clear that the only conditions which can be imposed when reserved matters are approved are conditions which directly relate to those reserved matters.
An inspector has deleted a condition which required that a new bungalow in Cambridgeshire should be one-bedroomed and single storey only, ruling it to be unnecessary (DCS Number 400-027-951).
The appellant suggested that first floor rooms could be incorporated into a chalet bungalow, with no windows facing properties on an adjacent road. The inspector accepted that it was for the appellant to demonstrate, through the submission of detailed plans, whether or not first floor accommodation or more than one bedroom could be incorporated into the bungalow without compromising its design and the relationship with the character and appearance of the area. Any design, the inspector continued, would also need to ensure that acceptable levels of outlook, light and privacy for occupiers of neighbouring properties would be retained. The removal of the condition would not preclude the council from assessing these elements of the scheme at the reserved matters stage.
This case concerns an appeal against the refusal of planning permission for the creation of two additional units at a homeless hostel in west London. The units, the inspector noted, would fall some way below the adopted internal space standards in the local plan and would not be provided with any private external space. He also noted, however, that the local plan was clear that development would be required to meet the demands of everyday life for the intended occupants.
There are sixty-eight shopping days till Christmas.
Perhaps it is a bit early to be buying a Christmas tree but readers might be interested to hear that an inspector has granted prior approval for a barn conversion in Gloucestershire after ruling that the growing of Christmas trees falls within the definition of agriculture (DCS Number 400-027-574).
The residential conversion of agricultural barns under Class Q of the GPDO is precluded if the location or siting would make it ‘impractical’ or ‘undesirable’. Conversion is often found to be ‘impractical’, but when might a conversion be considered ‘undesirable’?