An enforcement notice aimed at the residential use of land in Worcestershire has been declared a nullity by an inspector for the not uncommon reason of failing to specify a compliance period (DCS Number 400-020-206).
Posts By: dcplatest
An appellant seeking to establish that the unfettered residential occupancy of a barn conversion in the Lake District would be lawful was disappointed when an inspector decided that the term ‘locality’ in a restrictive condition was precise and enforceable (DCS Number 400-020-182).
In deciding an appeal against a south London council’s refusal to grant a certificate of lawfulness for a vehicle crossover (DCS Number 400-020-168), an inspector has distinguished between ‘porous’ and ‘permeable’ hard surfacing.
In a previous blog, Flame test, we reported an appeal case in which an inspector was not satisfied that a sprinkler system would provide adequate mitigation against fire safety risk at a site for four flats which would be inaccessible to fire appliances. In another appeal concerning the erection of one dwelling in Greater Manchester, on the other hand, an inspector decided that sprinklers would overcome the problem.
At the spookiest time of the year we found this in an appeal against the refusal of planning permission for the residential conversion of a church in the Scottish Highlands (DCS Number 400-019-958):
The conventional planning view has been that low levels of car ownership can be expected amongst elderly people, and accordingly, parking requirements at retirement housing need only be minimal. Perhaps this view is becoming a little outdated, as an inspector determining an appeal against the refusal of planning permission for sheltered retirement apartments in Essex points out (DCS Number 400-019-603):
We all have to keep up with the times, including inspectors.
An inspector determining an appeal relating to a 49-storey mixed use building in east London (DCS Number 200-007-957) has reported that “At the site visit, virtual reality goggles allowed me to ‘see’ the proposed building in its future surroundings.”
An inspector has granted retrospective planning permission for a treehouse at a house in Hampshire after disagreeing with the council that it was a highly visible, obtrusive and incongruous feature (DCS Number 400-020-057).
An inspector determining an appeal against the refusal of outline planning permission for four dwellings in rural Hampshire has distinguished between housing demand and housing need (DCS Number 200-007-965).
Local plan policy allowed for small scale residential proposals of a scale and type that met a locally agreed need, the inspector recorded. The appellants argued that ‘demand’ for housing is synonymous with ‘need’.
Hot tubs do not require planning permission, a reporter determining a case in southeast Scotland has ruled (DCS Number 400-019-975).
The reporter identified the key factors he needed to assess in relation to whether the eleven hot tubs, sited at park lodges, required planning permission were their size, permanence and degree of physical attachment to the land (Cardiff Rating Authority v Guest Keen Baldwin Iron & Steel Co Ltd  and Skerritts of Nottingham Ltd v SSETR & Harrow LBC ).