A recent appeal decision (DCS Number 400-029-264) serves as a reminder that planning committee members who fail to heed their officers’ advice, having been swayed solely by local opinion, are in peril of seeing an award of costs made against their council.
Posts By: dcplatest
An inspector has quashed an enforcement notice requiring the demolition of an extension to a house in Surrey after deciding that it was permitted development (DCS Number 400-028-983).
The inspector recorded that Class A of Part 1, Schedule 2 of the GPDO permits the enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse. Paragraph A.3 provides that development is permitted by Class A subject to conditions, of which it was argued by the council that condition (a) was in breach, in that the external materials were not of similar appearance to those used in the construction of the exterior of the existing dwellinghouse. The Order gives no further interpretation of the meaning of this condition, the inspector noted.
Recent events in the United States have given us all reason to reflect on the value and nature of democracy. Against this background comments from a planning inspector in a recent appeal decision (DCS Number 200-009-796) provide an important reminder that we operate a plan-led system built upon community involvement:-
The description of development from a recent appeal decision (DCS Number 400-029-206):-
“The development proposed is wooden horse field shelter.”
In this case the inspector was unconvinced by the appellant’s argument that the timber building was for outdoor sport and therefore not inappropriate development in the green belt. He observed that the building was sited within a garden area where there were garden chairs, and it had grooved timber decking.
With the prospect of Blue Monday looming we are sorry to report that the demands of planning legislation on planning professionals might be even greater than we thought.
A recent appeal case (DCS Number 200-009-731), though relating specifically to a proposed agricultural development, has a bearing on the consideration of prior approval applications in general.
A Happy New Year to all our readers! Perhaps it hasn’t been entirely the start to the year that we were hoping for but a recent appeal decision (DCS Number 400-029-162) reminds us that planners are always looking ahead to a brighter future.
Ménage and manège are often confused but we have it from an authoritative source – a planning inspector dealing with an appeal concerning a site in Hertfordshire (DCS Number 400-028-935) – that if it’s horse-related it’s likely to be manège. Here is what he says in a Procedural Matter paragraph:-
A couple who wished to replace a Hertfordshire cottage which had been destroyed by fire found their hopes were in cinders when an inspector pointed out that it would be contrary to green belt policy (DCS Number 400-028-695).
A north Devon council which issued an enforcement notice alleging “the material change of use of the land involving the erection of a building for residential use entailing human habitation” was given some good news and bad news by the inspector determining the subsequent appeal (DCS Number 400-028-602). The inspector found that the council had conflated the operational development with the material change of use but nevertheless declined to rule that the notice was a nullity. He did rule that it was invalid, though.
In determining an appeal against an enforcement notice requiring the demolition of an unauthorised roof extension at a house in Hertfordshire an inspector has ruled that there is no degree of tolerance in permitted development rights (DCS Number 400-028-517).