Looking at a development proposal through the prism of an appellant’s reasoning can often be enlightening, sometimes entertaining, and sometimes even alarming. See what you make of the following appeal case which concerned the redevelopment of a commercial garage in central London with a block of 23 flats (DCS Number 200-008-756).
Posts By: dcplatest
Frequently, the best way to ensure the preservation of a heritage building is to use it, and more often than not the use for which it was designed will be the most suitable. In this regard a recent appeal in Sussex where the functioning of a working windmill was a matter of concern is an interesting case.
“Latin is a language, dead as dead can be,
First it killed the Romans, and now it’s killing me.”
Despite the claims of this little rhyme, found scrawled in many a Latin textbook, Latin lives on in modern English, as we all know. Bear in mind that the Latin for maidservant is ‘ancilla’ when reading the following and it will help you to remember the distinction between ‘ancillary’ and ‘incidental’, made by the second inspector.
A statue of Emmeline Pankhurst in Parliament Square near to the Houses of Parliament has been rejected at appeal, the inspector finding no exceptionally good reason to locate the statue in an area identified in a supplementary planning document as a monument saturation zone (DCS Number 400-023-176).
Not so long ago we reported an appeal case in which an inspector ruled that a restaurant was a community facility (High on the hog). In that case (DCS Number 400-022-010) the inspector decided that the loss of the restaurant to residential use “…would have a harmful impact on the ability of the community to meet its day to day needs.”
A recent appeal against the refusal of planning permission for eight houses in rural Kent (DCS Number 400-022-777) has allowed us a glimpse of the future, the day when, just maybe, our travel habits are not polluting the atmosphere with noxious gases. Whilst the inspector dismissed the appeal, it is interesting to note the direction of travel.
From time to time there is debate about the size of a planning unit so we thought it might be useful to report a recent appeal case in which the subject was addressed (DCS Number 400-022-610). In this case the inspector ruled that an enforcement notice which required the cessation of motocross activities at a former quarry in south Yorkshire was not defective, despite the appellant’s claim that the planning unit was not identified correctly.
Since when has it been the appellant’s responsibility to educate a planning inspector about planning law?!
In Open all hours? we reported an appeal case in which the inspector cited the relevant planning legislation concerning electronic communications (DCS Number 400-016-112). He recorded that “Paragraph 2(7) of Schedule 1 to the Town and Country Planning (Electronic Communications) (England) Order 2003 and Article 2(9) of the GPDO are clear”….”that communications received outside of normal business hours shall be taken to have been received the next working day. Furthermore, section 336(4A) of the 1990 Act indicates that an electronic communication, used for the purposes of giving a notice, shall be taken to have been received the following day if received outside of that person’s business hours.”
A pizza outlet in west London which is prohibited from delivering takeaways by motor vehicle has overcome the constraint by means of some imaginative thinking (DCS Number 400-022-916).
The appeal inspector noted that the condition in dispute did not prevent deliveries from taking place from the premises but restricted the use of motor vehicles which were defined to include motorcycles, mopeds and motor scooters. The appellants sought to use electrically assisted pedal cycles.
Economic and social changes have meant that these days children very often grow up, leave the family home to lead independent lives….and then come back again.
An interesting appeal case concerning an agricultural occupancy condition on a dwelling in Yorkshire sought to exploit this phenomenon (DCS Number 400-022-725). The condition stated that the occupation of the dwelling was limited to a person solely or mainly employed in agriculture in the locality, including any dependants, or a widow or widower of such a person. The appellants sought a certificate of lawfulness on the basis that the dwelling had been occupied in breach of the condition by a financially independent child for over ten years.