A neat summary of the nature of a condition precedent can be found in an appeal seeking an LDC to confirm that a house in Bedfordshire had been erected without planning permission (DCS Number 400-019-565).
Posts By: dcplatest
In Oxfordshire some allowance has been made for the unsettling impact of Brexit, where an inspector has extended permission for the retention of eight staff caravans at an hotel beyond April 2019, allowing the business time to arrange alternative staff accommodation following the country’s departure from the EU (DCS Number 400-019-891).
An inspector has granted permission for independent use of a granny annexe in the Devon countryside in line with a revision to the NPPF (DCS Number 400-019-912).
Planning permission had been granted in 2003 for the reconstruction of a dwelling with granny annexe. The permission was subject to a condition that the annexe should not be used as an independent unit of residential accommodation separate from the house, in accordance with the development plan which sought to protect the countryside.
All sorts of fun facts can be derived from planning appeals, and it was the behaviour of parasites that resulted in a successful appeal against the refusal of prior approval for a barn conversion in Devon.
This one is a little bizarre but….an inspector has determined that a certificate of lawfulness cannot be used to certify that a site has no lawful use (DCS Number 200-007-885).
The inspector identified the main issue in the appeal as being whether s191(1)(a) of the Act can be used to confirm that a site has a nil use or whether its scope is limited to certifying that an actual existing use as opposed to no use at all is lawful.
Paragraph 197 of the NPPF says:
“The effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that directly or indirectly affect non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.”
An interesting point concerning the “second bite” provision of the Act has arisen in an appeal concerning an enforcement notice directed at the excavation of a trench at a house in Oxfordshire (DCS Number 400-019-599).
In one respect the planning system can be compared to the tax system. Tax avoidance might represent diligent financial husbandry, whereas tax evasion will land you in serious trouble. Similarly, avoiding the requirement for planning permission might be perfectly sensible; evading the need for planning permission is only for the foolhardy. The important thing is to recognise that there is sometimes a narrow distinction between the two. A recent appeal against an enforcement notice requiring the demolition of a garden room at a cottage in Hampshire (DCS Number 400-019-366) illustrates the point.
Taken from a recent appeal decision (DCS Number 400-019-740):
“Consequently….the front extension would not be viewed as an insubordinate or disproportionate addition to the property….”
Glad to hear it. There’s nothing worse than a mutinous house extension.
Believe it or not the revised NPPF has clarified an aspect of national planning policy. Yes, really! The Blog found the following in an appeal against the refusal of permission for the change of use of a house in southeast London to a day nursery in which highway safety was an issue (DCS Number 200-007-830):