A recent court case, Gluck v Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local Government , has brought good luck to a local authority in Cheshire which found itself unable to determine a prior approval application under Class Q of the GPDO within the requisite period.
Posts By: dcplatest
The planning application process demands that information is provided about the context in which a development site is located. Given that that context might comprise land which is outside the control of the applicant, it can be problematic to provide information that is totally accurate. Nevertheless, providing inaccurate information has resulted in an unfortunate outcome for a would-be developer in north London.
As we all now know, we live in unprecedented times, and we are all having to adapt in one way or another. For its part, the Planning Inspectorate is busily exploring new ways of working and decision-making whilst adhering to the principles of fairness, openness and impartiality. In this context, we thought it might be useful to flag up a recent appeal against an enforcement notice which required the demolition, within twelve months, of an unauthorised house in Kent (DCS Number 400-025-508).
An inspector has allowed a takeaway near to three primary schools on Merseyside, reasoning that primary school children would not be allowed out of school on their own, and so would be unable to buy takeaway food (DCS Number 400-025-467). You might think that perhaps the inspector has a point…until reading a further appeal decision, relating to a takeaway in Gateshead, in which the inspector reasons that where there are overweight children in an area there are probably also overweight adults, and planning policies are aimed at improving the health of the population as a whole (DCS Number 400-025-220).
Every now and then an inspector writes a decision which is quite simply a textbook example of how to approach a particular situation. Here is a good one relating to a log cabin within the curtilage of a dwelling (DCS Number 400-024-865) which you might wish to file and use for reference, should you come across a similar proposal during your own work.
Class B of Part 2 to Schedule 2 of the GPDO permits the formation, laying out and construction of a means of access to a highway which is not a trunk road or a classified road, where that access is required in connection with development permitted by any Class of Schedule 2 (other than by Class A of Part 2). Article 3(6) of the GPDO states, however, that the permission granted by Schedule 2 does not authorise any development which creates an obstruction to the view of persons using any highway used by vehicular traffic, so as to be likely to cause danger to such persons. But what might constitute an obstruction? In determining an appeal against refusal of a certificate of lawfulness for a vehicular access to a new driveway at a house in Buckinghamshire, an inspector found that the use itself of the access would cause an obstruction (DCS Number 400-024-695).
Caravan sites can sometimes be a bit Spartan so it was perhaps with this in mind that the owner of a Hampshire caravan park decided to create a new classically styled entrance. In upholding an enforcement notice requiring its removal, however, an inspector made it clear that he did not appreciate its design (DCS Number 400-025-298).
While we are on the subject of temporary buildings and structures permitted under Schedule 2, Part 4, Class A of the GDPO (see Further ‘required’ reading), what is meant by ‘adjoining that land’?
An inspector has quashed an enforcement notice requiring the removal of a marketing suite at a care development under construction in south London, after finding it to be permitted development (DCS Number 400-024-944).
The owner of a shisha and dessert lounge in Coventry might be feeling a bit hot under the collar after an inspector refused to sanction the retention of two artificial palm trees at the front of the building, despite the effects of climate change (DCS Number 400-025-155).